Quote:
Originally Posted by tw
Those most opposed to abortions also support Israeli stealing of Palestinian land and other acts of aggression only because these moral people want Armageddon. Why do these same people who worry about a few dead babies also have no problem advocating a massacre of most Jews in Israel - Armageddon? You opened the can of worms with the predicate of your question. You tell me who more moral - or are they really only lying to themselves to entertain their emotional biases?
|
I understand your point -- that being "pro life" means that you should be opposed to the intentional taking of life in all of its forms, be it abortion, fertility, war, "military actions", etc. All I can say is that most of the people in the pro life circles I frequent DO oppose those things. Not all, of course, but most. This mindset requires consistency, and you're right to point out hypocricy when you see it. Forget what you hear from congresscritters and other political pundits. I'm talking about the people on the ground, the counselors at crisis pregnancy centers, the girls who decide to put their children up for adoption, the ones holding vigils for prisoners on death row.
I also don't want to conflate too many issues. A discussion about abortion can go in many directions, but diving into the politics of war can sometimes muddy the waters.
The legal line for abortions in the U.S. is "viability." English common law had it at "quickening", which is somewhere around 20-24 weeks. But Roe vs. Wade codified it at about 7 months (28 weeks), or specifically, "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."
But you have to watch out for the "viability" argument. Given the photograph that we're having this discussion under, it's clear that we're getting better and better at being able to care for children at earlier and earlier stages of gestation. There are even people working (in Japan) on artificial wombs. Some time in the future, we're likely to have the ability to have a fetus be viable outside the womb mere days after conception. I wouldn't want our definition of who is worthy to live be based upon what current technology we have around.
Anyway, sorry to mire the conversation down. I just wanted to get people thinking.