Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinSE
The justification for banning or not comes down to moral/ethical issues based on "killing". And the issue can be debated ad nauseam, since there is no agreed upon definition of "human life" - and it is illegal to kill another human, but without agreement on what is a human (or when it becomes human) there is no way to resolve the debate.
As an atheist banning abortion appears to be a religious issue to me, and I am concerned with letting religion into the basis for laws. So, my position is this is a moral issue. An issue that has to be resolved between the woman (and the father?) and her/their doctor.
It seems most polls indicate a significant majority of the country (65% to 75%) disagree with overturning Roe v Wade. I expect this decision will have significant impacts on upcoming elections as women (and some men) become highly motivated to vote that otherwise would have stayed home.
To put it into a metaphor, "Now that the dog has caught the car, what is it going to do with it".
|
It is a strange LOGIC that proclaims "right to life" while REALLY meaning FORCED unwanted BIRTHS. What about proclaiming a right to a QUALITY of life for the pregnant woman. Those that want to pass laws to FORCE unwanted BIRTHS should be THEMSELVES FORCED to adopt these unwanted children.
.........I ask myself, " How can increased UNWANTED CHILDREN make a country stronger". it takes years of LOVE and devotion to turn a child into a PRODUCTIVE adult and thus have a stronger country. It is basically UNPATRIOTIC to require more UNWANTED children to be forced onto society. And at a time when the world is suffering from overpopulation problems like GLOBAL WARMING, species decline and extinction, forest destruction, and even the beginning phase of a GLOBAL world war.
............I wonder if OTHER COUNTRIES like Norway, Japan, Australia, and others allow 25% of their population
(consisting of CRAZY church ladies) to drive their countries destiny like here in the US of A?