Quote:
Originally Posted by all-is-woe";p="
This is why there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state.
I think that abortion should be allowed, so long as it is limited to the age at which the foetus can exist outside the womb; with extensions if there is a risk to the life of the mother, or if the child has a terrible disability that would destroy its quality of life.
I cannot see how you can apply human rights to that of a foetus, considering that many parts of the UN charter of human rights are non-applicable to an unborn foetus. In this sense, the foetus is simply a part of the mother until it can survive outside the womb, at which point (in my opinoin) it becomes a child.
|
Interesting...isn't it? I find that pro choicers use words like "fetus" and "embryo" and "blastocyst" in much the same way that a racist will use words like "(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)" and "coon" and "spook"...as if to say that "we" deserve the protection of the law, but those people...with names like that don't .
The fact is that embryo, and fetus, and blastocyst are just words used to describe human beings in certain stages of their development...just like toddler, infant, teenager, and adult. Using scientific jargon does not erase the humanity of the humans that you are talking about any more than calling an old geezer an octagenerian would erase his humanity.
Putting qualifiers on people to exempt them from the protection of the law is exactly what all racists and elitists do...just dehumanize them just a little and then they are no longer your equals and it is ok to do with them as you will....
And "your opinion" means little in the face of science...the fact that in "your opinion" a child is simply part of the mother until it is born demonstrates that you have based "your opinion" on an ignorance of the biological facts. If that is what "your opinion" is based on, perhaps if you did a bit of research, you would find that maybe you aren't so pro choice after all.