Are you assuming that I'm in favor of that extreme? I'm not- I think I've said before that I think viability is a reasonable cut-off for an exercise of the right to choice. Does it confuse you that not all us leftists are for an extreme leftist position?
Doesn't confuse me at all; what does confuse me is why you think that addresses the other issues I mentioned. If an unborn baby is a fully human (and sacred) life, why is it less so if it's a product of rape or incest? I'm not trying to bait you here, or looking for a "gotcha!" I know a lot of pro-choice advocates like to say that the pro-life position is based on a desire to control women and their bodies (or some such); I think that people who oppose abortion are sincere, and need to be understood as such, otherwise there's no possibility of reasonable discussion. Both sides, I think, need to back off on the rhetoric of "baby killers!" vs "fundies who want to make slaves of women!" A clash of absolutes is an irresolvable one where nobody wins.
I when abortion is practiced for "convienience" that is where I draw the line. When a woman has been violated or her life is at stake, reasonable people can make difficult decisions.
(Shrug) Ok. "Human life is sacred," except when it's the product of rape or incest, then it's profane enough for "reasonable people" to decide- for the woman- that it's fine for her to go ahead and have the abortion, because...reasons. But the woman herself apparently never has any right, on her own grounds, to make the decision. Guess we'll have to add this to the list of things we disagree on- a short list we'll just call "everything."
Its just a bit more than that, she can still have the child. The state isn't forcing her to have an abortion. I'm sure it's easier for you just to call it an unviable tissue mass thereby making easier to just kill it. Liberals used to say nothing is black and white but it sure is to them when dealing with difficult decisions.
Perhaps so, and it would not surprise me a bit if a large part of the anti abortion argument comes down to attitudes about sexual responsibility and the wages of sin, but if that's so, then the fetal argument, and the basic idea of "right to life" are disingenuous. I don't see how you can have it both ways.
That's not the argument, though. If you do argue that all fetal life is sacred without exception, how can the social context of the sex act constitute an exception? Plenty of people on both sides have come to the conclusion that even strong moral principles have to have some flexibility because life is complicated and rarely black and white. Marplots's suggestion is shared by some, but when it is, it automatically and inherently contradicts absolute right to life by making a distinction about how that life came about. While many may disagree about where the lines are drawn, even many "right to life" advocates recognize that there are gray areas where such exceptions are called for. But I think absolutists like ChrisBFRKPY have abandoned the allowance for exception, and because of that, Marplots's suggestion cannot apply. Exceptions inherently contradict absolutes.
I think that is a rational position even if I disagree with it. My previous argument was not with that position, but with that of ChrisBFRKY, who appears, in his argument, to make no such allowance, considering abortion an evil that no other evil can outweigh, and with Marplots, whose position does not address Chris's absolutism.
