(March 8, 2011 at 6:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:Limit the suffering of others by your actions and maximise yours and others well being. Blanket pro-choice/pro-life statements are useless and meaningless, each case should be considered subjectively on its own merit. The decision in this case causes revulsion in most (including me) and was probably wrong.(March 8, 2011 at 5:33 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: So Fr0d0..would you tell a 12 year old victim of insestual rape that she has to carry the baby to term and care for it?I think I'm pro life. An opinion newly fostered since reading the series on aristpophrenium.com
Either you are pro choice or you are not. Either you support abortion or you do not. Either you vote "yes" that the 12 year old can kill her innocent baby or not.
The thing is a life is just that. To say we ought to have a veto on that life by virtue of the fact that it isn't out in the outside world yet seems indefensible to me. To make conditions like you just did and say our appeal to justice has to be limited by sweeping statements is also abhorrent. Of course there are mitigating circumstances and we need to pursue justice at all cost.
Pro-life lobby miss the fact that the baby IS PART of the mother and she probably has more rights (in my view) than the foetus in the early months of pregnancy. In the latter months the unborn foetus probably has more rights and the presumption should be for them. Most countries embed this principle in law. In cases where the foetus would nominally have more rights and they are horribly disadvantaged, a bit of common sense should prevail as the mother is not a life support machine and the baby should not be born and be tortured to death by their own body (as in this case).
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
