Quote:
Originally Posted by will2power
The question is a moot one.
|
I agree 100%. The conditions for life are actually just a construction of the human mind and the gray areas are up for debate.
We may as well be asking if a tuatara is really a lizard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by will2power
Rather than arguing what cannot be agreed upon by the scientific community, you should instead focus your attention towards something that might actually be effective in satisfying both parties.
Right to lifers are mad because they believe that the embryo has no protections under the law, essentially.
Pro Choice is mad because no woman wants to be forced by the state to carry a child to term. They feel what is being asked of them is invasive and Orwellian.
You have to look for an answer that is going to satisfy both groups, instead of pointless debate on who is right. Set aside the argument for a moment and think about it. What would actually make both sides happy?.
|
I think you are on the right track here. But I really don't see a plausible way to make both sides happy. I'd settle for a way to get both sides to argue civilly, understanding each other's points rather than yelling at one another.
My position is similar to Hillary Clinton's on this issue: the "safe and rare" argument. I think abortion is somewhat barbaric but there are enough circumstances to justify it to make attempts to stop it sometimes barbaric.
But furthermore I don't think anything good can come from illegalizing abortion. Like other widespread problems of its nature, all this does is makes a black market and creates additional problems.
It is better to focus on studying WHY abortions take place. Few (if any) women will callously have abortions with no bad feelings. There are social forces that make this ugly option seem good or make alternatives seem inaccessible.
First step is to look at demographics and try to find common denominators.
Quote:
Originally Posted by will2power
Step with me into the what if machine for a moment... What if we expended our efforts into devising a way to nurture an embryo artificially to term? Or in other instances, a means to take that living embryo and implant it into a mother that cannot produce a fertile egg, or a mother who wants to have a child without a husband, or a volunteer? The rights of the embryo are protected, and at the same time the mother is absolved of her parental obligaition as well as the physical discomforts of pregnancy? Take it a step further and make a system where the genetic heritage of the child is kept on file devoid of any parenting information so that the child can have accurate medical care without exposing the parentage.
|
That might be nice... but we can't just hope for scientific development as a proxy for policy. And once this science does come forth (which it may very well) we'll have our hands full with other legal questions as this will surely not be the only application.
Quote:
Originally Posted by will2power
How much further along would we be in this, if we stopped trying to win an argument, and concentrated more on solving the problem? You're not going to get anywhere in trying to force your views--whatever they are, on someone who doesn't share them. It doesn't have to be either or... Devote your effort to the solution and not the continuing argument....
|
Again, I think you're on the right track... but you do have to consider that the pro-life and pro-choice forces that are involved are arguing based on very black-and-white principles: right of life and right of authority over body. Neither is likely to want compromise.
It really is mostly the people in the middle (who outnumber the activists, but do not care as much) who are the only hope for any kind of compromise.