[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Two responses: 1) agreed, write it into law. 2) The reason it has centered.on the women in this thread is that guys are absolutely eithout say in the matter of abortion. ONLY the women have a say in that–and, as the process of abortion centers around dismemberment or otherwise killing a human life (which, incidentally is the part that people who believe fetuses are persons have a huge issue with…the killing part), the result is that in a situation where the center of the controversy boils around killing something it will be quite natural to center discussion around that. THIS of course does not involve the man (legally speaking).
It has absolutely nothing to do with a woman being held MORE responsible than a guy in the minds of those talking, which is why I brought up thefact that I totally agree with your suggestion and as far as I am aware every single pro life person I know of at least absolutely agrees the man who would ditch his responsibility is a fucking scumbag. The fact that the discussion has thus far centered around the fetus inside the woman and the woman is a byproduct of the fact that the center of the controversy about killing a human life who happens to be inside a woman, not–I repeat NOT–the fact that a woman is more responsibls for the situation than thd guy. It takes two people to get into the situation in the first place.
In still other words, this is marginally equivalent to the ACA bill/laws constitutionality and clusterfuckedness being the center of the controversy pre-SCOTUS and having somebody say “well you spent 15 pages on this whether or not this is constitutional but not a word about uninsured people! I hate seeing people left uninsured so the last 15 pages have been bullshit”. Well, yes–I do hate that too. but the center of discussion is properly put on whether or not that law is allowable under the current form of gov’t not whether or not there are uninsured people we all agree need help. Just like the center of discussion is very properly “should it be legal and is it ethical to kill a human life in the womb”.
I hope you see what I have been saying. That is a very poor analogy but it was all I could think up on the spot. I like women too as a matter of fact, and I like protecting them as well as making sure deadbeat guys don’t leave them when they are most vulnerable. But as very important as that is, it ultimately has no bearing on whether the central tenet is ethical or not.
Again, I do totally agree with putting that into a law so guys can’t get out of it. and I’ll reiterate again that I believe the guy is JUST AS RESPONSIBLE as the girl in this situation.
EDIT: Let me put it this way. the question of “is it ethical to kill X” whether x is a fetus, a felon on death row, le whatever, is independent and must always be held independent of the practical considerations of HOW to enact a set of ethics. This goes for not just this topic but all other ethical issues, as well as governmental issues of constitutionality and proper governance. [/quote]
I see what you are saying, or at least I think so. I’d like to point out, that unless it is openly spelled out you never know what another person is thinking. You may well think you fight the same cause with someone just to find in the end that you didn’t. [/quote]
Quite true. It was good of you to double check and bring that point up as well.
Agreed, although it shouldn’t be that way. That’s why I would support writing the thing into law as discussed last page.
100% agree. Except there’s no way to responsibly willfully murder a human life (I used that term specifically not because of the emotional rhetoric but because it does not, in my mind, meet the requisite standards for either defense or the term “killing” which may be justifiable for a variety of reasons). But I see what you are saying, I think.
I doubt very seriously that the society would suddenly become more conservative. More responsible perhaps, at least in regards to this area, but not at all more conservative and I don’t really see any convincing line of thought for that. But undoubtedly much better, if it were true, than increasing inequality.
I don’t buy that for a second. There’s no evidence for that and there never has been any convincing line of argument for that. There would still be illegal abortions continuing in this scenario yes, no doubt. However there is no way in hell the rate of abortion would INCREASE over what is going on now. None. Not unless you are going to argue the “well, now spontaneous natural miscarriage is going to be prosecuted as an abortion killing” which I would not recommend since it is specious on the face of it.
