Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
But the point of viability changes with advances in medicine. In 1974 no 24 week old fetus was viable outside the womb. They are now viable. So according to those who would draw the line at viability, 30 years ago a 24 week old fetus wasn't a human being but now he or she is?
|
Although I generally prefer not to join the abortion debates on here, this does make me curious. You ask this question as if it is outlandish to say yes (well, as far as I can tell from reading the words on the screen). Is that your position, that because viability has been extended to a fetus just 24 weeks old, that viability itself is an inherently flawed dividing line?
To put it another way, if RvW was updated to be keyed to current medicine's ability to make fetuseses viable, would it still be intellectually dishonest?
Quote:
|
It doesn't. That was my point in saying that the pro-lifers have a hard time with the children conceived by rape. On the one hand, everyone recognizes the horrific trauma forcing her to carry a child conceivec by rape would cause the mother. On the other hand, allowing the abortion would punish the child who comitted no crime. That is a hard choice for the pro-lifers.
|
Why is it a "hard choice" for the pro-lifers but "intellectually dishonest" when the pro-choicers draw a similarly difficult line? I don't think it's dishonest to take note of the vast numbers of children in poverty in this country and to say to oneself that we're not going to add to those numbers by forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child (subject to certain limitations). I think many find that to be a "hard choice" as well, esp those Catholics I know who find anguish in weighing the church's historical social teachings against the church's pro-life doctrines.
Please note that I too find those that see abortion as just another form of birth control as totally beyond the pale. Just as I hope you see those that would send letter bombs to abortion docs the same way.
