On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:01:09 -0500, HK wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

What about a woman forced to risk her life to take a pregnancy to term? Or
a child forced to carry her own father's baby? Is anti-abortion rhetoric
going to help a heroin addict deliver a child with severe mental
deficiencies? Maybe the Christian Coalition would like to adopt all
children born with severe mental and physical deformities, whose life
would only last for a few months? Is this the sanctity of life these
groups extol?

Reproductive rights preserves the rights of the living and often spares an
infant needless suffering. So what is it that the conservatives are
fighting for, anyway? Life at any cost? A utilitarian protection of the
rights of the majority, over the few? Sounds a lot like the ethics of war.
But, then again, that's a conservative value too.


Since you are being rational and non-offensive, I'll offer an opinion.
I recently looked up abortion statistics provided by a pro-abortion
organization.
Less than 1 percent of abortions are performed due to rape.
Something like 3 percent are done due to rape and/or health issues for
mother or unborn.
The rest ... 97 percent ... are done for "convenience".

Any reasonable person can understand the unfortunate requirement for
abortion in the case of rape or health issues. It's the irresponsible
aborting of life for "convenience" that is bothersome.

Eisboch




We're going to have to disagree. To me, the decision in the first three
months is something that is entirely within the purview of a pregnant
woman and her doctor. After that, if there is a strong medical reason
for an abortion, it should be allowed. Otherwise, no.

I also am convinced that the majority of those who speak the loudest
about making abortion illegal are not driven by their feelings of
"sanctity" for human life. If they were, it would be more of an absolute
for them. They would be demonstrating and speaking out en masse against
capital punishment, against war, against the conditions that allow
millions of children in this world to live in squalor and die of
starvation and disease. The fact that they are not doing this tells me
that the "sanctity of life" is not the real issue.

Harry, you should try, sometime, to make your arguments without passing
judgement on those who may disagree with you. When you start taking pot
shots at 'the majority....' (leaving out 'you know who' and 'you know
who'), your arguments become nothing more than a personal attack.

You don't 'know' the personal feelings of others. You keep trying to attach
the killing of unborn babies to deaths in combat. There are a couple of
differences. Deaths of innocent civilians in combat are accidental (please,
don't show me the exceptions), and the deaths of combatants is a matter of
choice. They choose to fight and take the risk.

The killing of unborn babies through abortion is not accidental, nor does
the baby have a choice in the situation.

As far as I know, this is the first time you've discussed a 'three month
rule'. At least you're now approaching a position which many may find more
tenable.
--
John H