Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Abortion - was Missouri Young Republicans?

[Nathan Odle <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

The argument for abortion, while not necessarily moral, is simple:

Selfishness.

-N

Brent Deterding wrote:

>Seems like a reasonable position - I happen to disagree. I believe life begins
>at conception. As such - if that egg is fertilized you have life - it's a moral
>thing. Ending life is murder, so I'm against abortions. 
>
>I seriously question why we can't all agree that abortions after a baby is
>viable is horrendous. I don't honestly know what, if any, argument there is
>against it?
>
>-- Brent 
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: EMAIL:PROTECTED 
>>[mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Miller
>>Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 11:15 AM
>>To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion
>>Subject: Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Abortion - was Missouri 
>>Young Republicans?
>>
>>On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I see this issue as being as vital and important as the 
>>>      
>>>
>>slavery issue 
>>    
>>
>>>150 years ago (an issue in which the Republicans also took 
>>>      
>>>
>>the "right"
>>    
>>
>>>side against the Democrats).  Indeed it is interesting that such 
>>>reformers as Susan B. Anthony, as well as fighting for the 
>>>      
>>>
>>rights of 
>>    
>>
>>>women, were also strongly abolishonist, and pro-life, seeing all 
>>>issues as equally involving the rights of people (women, 
>>>      
>>>
>>black people, 
>>    
>>
>>>unborn babies respectively).
>>>      
>>>
>>Interesting.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>What really brings home the abortion issue to me is a story 
>>>      
>>>
>>I remember 
>>    
>>
>>>a few years ago where some kids murdered their baby just 
>>>      
>>>
>>after it was 
>>    
>>
>>>born.  There was a great sense of outrage around the 
>>>      
>>>
>>country as these 
>>    
>>
>>>people were brought to justice.  On the other hand, if they 
>>>      
>>>
>>had more 
>>    
>>
>>>sense, they could have had a legal abortion a few weeks 
>>>      
>>>
>>earlier, and 
>>    
>>
>>>no-one apart from a few deomonstrators outside the abortion clinic 
>>>would have been bothered.  I can see no moral difference between 
>>>aborting the baby and waiting until it is born before 
>>>      
>>>
>>killing it - yet 
>>    
>>
>>>the laws in this country differ very widely.
>>>      
>>>
>>I think we see the problem in much the same way but have 
>>different views. 
>>Looking at the end of gestation, there is obviously a major 
>>problem in distinguishing abortion from infanticide -- 
>>ultimately, they are the same thing!  At the early end of 
>>gestation, it is difficult to distinguish contraception 
>>(e.g., birth control pills) from abortions.  Where can lines 
>>be drawn and how can we make rational choices about laws?
>>
>>Here's what I think (and I don't expect you to agree):  We 
>>can allow abortion before a fetus has reached the stage of 
>>viability (prior to 20 weeks, say) because it is still fully 
>>dependent on the mother and not an independently-functioning 
>>being.  A woman should have the right to end her pregnancy.  
>>After 20 weeks, the fetus is viable and should not be aborted 
>>unless it is seriously ill or deformed, or the life of the 
>>mother is in jeopardy.  Women who want abortions will have to 
>>have them early enough and if they wait too long, they will 
>>have to put their babies up for adoption if they don't want 
>>them.  That seems reasonable to me.  If we allow early 
>>deliveries of premature babies, we'll suffer a huge burden of 
>>medical costs and infant illness.
>>
>>Mike
>>_______________________________________________
>>discussion mailing list
>>EMAIL:PROTECTED
>>http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>discussion mailing list
>EMAIL:PROTECTED
>http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>  
>


_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion