Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
No Abortion in South Dakota!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: [QB] Oh boy, I can't believe I'm about to step right into the thick of this, but fuck it, right? The primary argument taking place here is about whether or not abortion is right or wrong.� This argument will never go [i]anywhere[/i].� It's a matter of opinion and, with a few exceptions, everyone has already made up his/her mind about which side he/she agrees (more or less) with.� No one is going to convince Omega or Irishman that abortion is really okay, and likewise nobody is going to convince Jason that it is a morally reprehensible act.� In this sense, the argument is futile and pointless. You can talk about the morality or immorality of something until you're as blue in the face as Shran, but the argument only functions so long as everyone is grounded in the same moral beliefs.� Which, obviously, we're not.� Differing people have differing morals.� In an [i]objective[/i] sense abortion is neither "right" nor "wrong" because those concepts do not exist. Moral arguments are irrelevent. Sooner or later, one must recognize and accept that not everyone will lead their lives according to one's own moral standards. Whether one feels it acceptable to try to force others to live by those morals or not is irrelevent, becuase most of the time this is impossible anyway. As many people here and elsewhere have pointed out, law or no law, people will act in accordance with what THEY perceive as the best course of action for them. In this case, that means women will have abortions whether it's legal or not. This is a FACT and it cannot be sidestepped. So it becomes a question of--forgive the expression--choosing the lesser of two evils. Would you rather have this act, which you consider to be morally wrong but which will inevitably occur, legally monitored and regulated/performed by licensed physicians or would you rather have it being done by desperate young women in public restrooms? �� Socio-anthropologically speaking, laws are always a [i]compromise[/i] of some kind put forth in an effort to allow as many people as possible to live peacefully together in a society. All the laws that restrict people's freedom of action must exist solely for the (ironic word usage ahead) [i]convenience[/i] of society at large. They must somehow further its functioning. Murder, rape, and theft are illegal not because they are immoral acts but because they are acts that inhibit the normal functions of a society. Trying to legislate morality is a stupid idea, because it is not a constant among the population or even, at times, among individuals. A law which exists to enforce a moral viewepoint but is not [i]necessary[/i] to the overall functioning of society will not work. As someone else also mentioned, Prohibition was a prime example of this in the U.S., as are (IMHO) the current federal laws regarding marijuana. Forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term is not rendering any necessary benefit either to them as individuals or to society at large. As a matter of fact, it is rather the opposite. It puts greater burden on the mother and her family as well as on the resources of the functioning whole. The world is already overpopulated; there are already thousands if not millions of children all over the world who do not have sufficient social or physical care and sustenance. THIS is the inhibition to society's functioning that needs to be overcome. THIS is what I think people should be crusading against. (Not to imply that there is no one already doing so, of course.) Since, as I said, laws are by their very nature compromises to allow varying people and ideas to coexist, [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] seems to present a quite reasonable soultion to this disagreement, in spirit if not in its particular provisions. You can have an abortion up to a certain point; after that point, you can't. This is a [i]compromise[/i] designed to give something to both sides. If people want to re-evaluate what that specific point should be, then that's fine, but you can't take an all-or-nothing moral absolutist stance on an issue like this, even if that is your first inclination. You can't just say "abortion is wrong and should be outlawed" and think that this is a complete or sufficient argument. -[b]MMoM[/b] :D [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3