posted
It occurs to me that there might be interesting parallels between a nation's right, need, what have you to go to war and kill others and a person's right, need, what have you to abort their child. In both cases, you're usually not talking about killing another person because it's necessary for existence, but because there is a certain standard of life that must be maintained.Specifically, the U.S. could just give up the war on terror and invite the Wahabiists into the White House to rule. Or dissolve the country entirely, open the borders, and give up. We don't *have* to go to war, do we?
Now, the argument might be made that one difference between abortion and a 'defensive' war, like the current war on terror, perhaps, is that a country might not do anything to deserve war, whereas a person must have sex to get pregnant. However, it's clear to me that this is rarely the case generally and almost certainly not the case now. If war is allowed for reasons other than absolute survival of the nation, it's rare that a people or a country does not have a history with another people or country such that some reason can't be found to kill for a certain quality of life. After all, as long as enough people survive in the people or the nation to carry on, does not the people or nation survive?
It might be argued that the actual nation itself is gone because the people are changed such that the nation itself--its customs, mores, and values--is gone. However, is this not, at root, what abortions that are not about the survival of the mother come down to?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A journalist that came to me school once said that the whole axis of evil is bull. That after the invasion of Afghanistan and the scattering of Al'Queida and the demolition of their training camps the war could just turn into a quiet war of international police work and diplomacy rather then all of this loud grandstanding. I'm inclinede to agree that the war queting down to levels of simply para military police work would've been far cheaper and would've costed less lives for either the same or more results.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Abortions due to rape are justifiable. If you chose to have sex, you chose (morally, not legally) to accept the possible consequences, including an assuming responsibility for an unwanted dependent. If you did not consent to sex, then you have no responsibility to provide for an uninvited guest. Difference between paying the medical bills of someone you ran over versus buying food for the beggar on your front door.
Abortion in the case of rape upholds the value of personal responsibility, while abortion in the case of consensual sex denies it.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with the principle that a raped woman shouldn't have to bear the offspring of her rapist, but instead of waiting to see if a pregnancy develops, I'd prefer any woman reporting a rape be given morning after birth control immediately, so that she never even has to undergo the emotional trauma of aborting a baby. That way, she never has to know whether or not there would have been implantation and that can ease her mind about at least one factor, she'll have enough emotional trauma to deal with without adding that in.
But I agree with Danzig that if you are a consenting adult and you have sex you should accept the responsibility that you may get pregnant. No birth control is 100% effective, I should know - my first daughter was conceived while I was on the pill.
Edit: Sorry Danzig, got your name wrong.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
