Good idea. Except, you know, society is harmed by not banning DWI, and other violent/wreckless behavior. Removing those people from society is a positive thing. Abortion? Not so much. In fact, it's practically the opposite affect. Society is greatly harmed by imposing a ban on abortion. More poverty, more unwanted kids, more dead mothers, to name a few. I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but drunk driving, rape, and abortion are three different things which have different causes and different affects on society, and thus are all treated differently under the law. But hey, you think a blastocyst, something with less living cells than what is found in the brain of a housefly, is a human and entitled to protection under the law, or has a soul, or something. And nothing will change that for you. So you want to impose great harm to society simply for your own peace of mind. Keep on truckin'.
I agree with DM that rape and abortion completely different and ill suited for this sort of analogy. The real horror of rape, beyond any long-term physical effects, is a culturally mediated loss of identity and autonomy as perceived by the victim. A fetus simply does not have the ability to experience those sorts of perceptions. Of course, this mode of victimization can be complicated if the rape results in impregnation. Do you think that women who are raped should be forced to carry to term? Now think about the fact that the vast majority of rapes are not reported. If the only way a woman can get an abortion is if her pregnancy is a result of a rape, I can see two obvious problem: (1) Women will face a double bind--revictimization by either being forced to bring the rape to public attention or by the constant reminders from disfigurement, drastic shifts in hormone levels, and ultimately the demands of raising a child; (2) There will be an incredible incentive to report false incidents of rape, which could lead to the persecution (either by law or by social shunning/vigilantism) of innocent men. Basically, your rape example shows just how poorly you've thought out your position. It's easy to appeal to emotion and declare that all women who have abortions are criminals and should be prosecuted. It's much harder to consider the reality of the situation, especially when you are trapped in a perverse moralist ethic.
Abortion all comes down to when you think a human being comes into existence. For me, it's definitely not in the first 10 weeks which is why I am fine with a woman having an abortion then. It's grey after that. I think there's a reason none of us can remember the day we were born or the first year of our lives for that matter. But I don't like that the pro-life crowd defines life based on their religion and then tries to impose that upon everyone else.
I watched the documentary 12th and Delaware, about an abortion clinic and anti-abortion organization located across the street from each other, on HBO a few months ago and even started a thread on it here: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=191032 Some of the tactics used by the anti-abortion crowd were pretty damn bad in my opinion. They would offer them food, gifts and assistance, leave them alone in rooms for extended periods of time so they would end up reading their propaganda while abortion videos played, told the women that they were earlier in the pregnancy than they actually were, discouraged the use of safe sex, etc. One of the girls who was talked out of having an abortion was seen at the end with none of the promised assistance or help and mentioned trying different things, such as lifting heavy materials, to purposefully abort the baby anyway.
If you read this sentence and you're more upset by the abortion than the lack of assistance, then you fail at the abortion issue.
Quiz time. Which one of these organizations will lessen human suffering and prevent more abortions? A: Planned Parenthood's Campaign for No-Cost Birth Control or B: The National Right to Life Movement
The problem with any analogies is that their perceived accuracy is based on whether or not a set of values is shared or not. The reason the fetus cannot "experience those sorts of perceptions" is because you killed it before it had a chance to live. Give me a tough life over no life anytime.... who would not choose that for themselves? You don't value the opportunity of life as I do. I'd like to know when the humanity enters that blob of cells. There is no reason to think it is at the moment of birth rather than the moment of conception.
I'm sure there are a lot of families in Iraq saying the same thing right now. What was your position on Iraq again?
No, it's because as a fetus, it actually can not experience those sorts of perceptions. it's a fetus. it can't experience any sort of perceptions. the analogy generally sucks. i agree. but that doesn't support a pro-life position. it just supports a limit on when during pregnancy abortion should be allowed. Do you think a woman in pregnancy who [fill in the blank - does something that is somewhat negligent, but not purposefully that ends up causing a miscarriage] should be charged with involuntary manslaughter or similar? And if so, where do you draw the line there? A woman on strict bed-rest walks around the house for 10 minutes out of boredom, idiocy, whatever, has a miscarriage, is devastated by it...wouldn't she have technically killed her unborn child, and done so in a manner that should have been obvious to somewhat her it might have happened?
Yeah, they choose no life for themselves-- not for others. When someone tries to make that "life" choice for others we have a problem with it until it comes to the fetus.
I doubt we really know or don't what what a fetus is capable of or when it is capable of some things. However, I think it is prudent to err on the side of caution and leave the creation alone since it will 100% of the time be born (dead or alive) as a human and never a toaster or a cucumber or anything else that is a blob of cells too. Who can really say when humanity is attained? Is it not best to assume the best where a potential life is concerned? Science has hundreds of years of false certainties on record. Quit trying to pin the accusation of murderer on me; I'm no slinging that language around. Every death does not involve a murder but pretty much every death involves actions or choices that we, by and large, want to avoid. Here's one we can culturally seek to avoid but we do the opposite and our values are compromised.
