chickenona wrote:This just illustrates the point I was trying to make. No matter what the decision is in any individual case, it's not made lightly and more than one person has a say in it. It's not just a matter of some "selfish woman" coldly terminating an "innocent life". And because so many gray areas do exist, legal access to abortion is the only practical compromise that can be reached here.
As for the teenage couple I cited earlier - whom I NEVER stated were relatives - ultimately the heartbreaking decision that they ended up making turned out to be the best solution for them. They were a conscientious couple who were using birth control that happened to fail. Both of them have gotten their lives back on track, and they're still together. I can't paint a picture of some horrible nightmare scenario of brutality and badgering and endless despair just because it fit's Vinnie Kulick's rather melodramatic take on this subject matter. It's a sad thing, but an abortion - a "do-over" as it were - turned out to be a necessary evil in these kids' lives.
I hope I didn't say anything hurtful to you, Chicke. I got PMed about it and I have the utmost respect for you - I think you know that, but it bears repeating. That goes for most here, whether I disagree with you on a topic or not. Nor do I expect to convert anyone's long-held beliefs - I am just expressing my own in turn.
My personal view is that abortion is abhorrent and almost never NECESSARY. It's a matter of degrees of inconvenience, because anyone can give up a baby for adoption anywhere in this country AFAIK. So it's 9 months' inconvenience per occurrence. Not a life-breaker. Kids flunk and spend an extra year in highschool all the time. It doesn't destroy their lives.
But I think the pro-life aproach is to minimize what's being done to a "procedure" rather than an ending of a life. Grade-school biology class taught us that when human sperm fertilizes a human egg, that zygote is a human life. Scientifically, by definition, life DOES begin at conception. It's not anyone's opinion, it's empirical fact.
Now if society is going to decide that this form of pre-euthanasia is acceptable, for whatever reason - in China it's population control, and is forced - then at least call it what it is, don't sugarcoat it or use euphemisms to minimize it.
Because those euphemisms lull young mothers into thinking that it's all right, in particular the grownups are saying it's okay, no big thing, and that convinces them to take the easy way out. But then, they have to thnk about it for the rest of their lives - no post-abortion counselors to deal with that, at least not free like the pre-sale.
I just find it intellectualy dishonest to deny the fact that a life is being taken when an abortion is performed. The zygote thing proves it and any 7-year-old understands that.
It's her body? Like I said, if I used my body to rob that bank, or kill that fucker that pissed me off, would anybody buy that justification? Hey, it's MY body, I can do what I want with it. Right? Yeah, right....
See how ridiculous it sounds when you put it that way? If I can kill an unborn baby because it's inconvenient to me, why can't I kill the bank guard who's inconveniently keeping me from getting the money I want?
Exactly, BOTH defenses are ridiculous. But again, if society is going to make it legal, call it what it is. Homicide. Society recognizes the idea of justifiable homicide, in effect legal abortion is another category of justifiable homicide. Think of it as self-defense against the inconvenience.
Because that is exactly what it is.