Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

I thought Sklansky was giving women 2 decent outs: non-surgical methods (morning after pill etc) which don’t really count and allowing doctors to deliver the fetus at any premature stage then trying to save him/her with technology. So if the rubber breaks she can either get the pill immediately or if she finds out too late for that (say she is on depo and does not have a period) she can have the doctor deliver the child early and give him/her up for adoption. Yes, adoption is traumatic for the mother, but I cannot see how it would be any worse than a surgical abortion.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with all that. Abortion is wrong, however, the alternative to it is far worse. Forcing a pregnant woman to gestate against her will is about as close to slavery as one can come in this society. Regardless of the reason a woman desires an abortion, she should not be forced to donate her bodily resources to an unwanted child inside of her.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see it this way. We already have social and legal obligations to the children we create. Can two parents, having just had their child delivered leave that child in the street and have nothing happen to them? Of course not. That's called neglect. The same can be said of child support. The government forces a person to pay their former spouse money against their will. How is this much different?

[ QUOTE ]
So let me see if I have this right... Abortion is murder because sometime in the future, we will be able to keep premature fetuses alive after they are removed from the womb? I don't see how that makes it murder.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, this was not a good argument for why abortion is murder. It's homicide because it is the ending of human life. Many consider it murder because they believe that embryo represents a person with rights such as the right to not be unjustly killed.

[ QUOTE ]
I do not like the fact that fetuses are being killed, but as I already stated, it beats the alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]
I fail to see how 9 months of pregnancy outweighs the taking of an innocent life. And why should anyone feel bad about someone exercising their "rights"? Shouldn't we be rejoicing everytime someone has an abortion?

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

But the belief in a soul is not required in order to hold this position.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

George Carlin is one of our nation's most treasured political scholars. It's a shame he has to divide his time between this and his theological treatises. Oh, and of course, fart jokes.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

Your argument crumbled as soon as you casually threw the word "slavery" in there.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

If you are going to quote the pro-life literature, then you should provide citations.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
And why should anyone feel bad about someone exercising their "rights"? Shouldn't we be rejoicing everytime someone has an abortion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you rejoice when someone has a tumor removed? It is their right to have it surgically removed.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your argument crumbled as soon as you casually threw the word "slavery" in there.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously didn't read the post I was responding to.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
But the belief in a soul is not required in order to hold this position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say it was.

Re: Sklansky on Abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
The pro-choicers are confused. They've understandably confused feminism with this issue

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok then, lets make this not about feminism. Sklansky made an analogy to the state forcing a woman to have a series of blood transfusions to keep her infant alive. If the state can force her to do that, then could the state also force the father to give his infant a bone marrow transplant if needed?