My Compromise on Abortion
Years ago, I was a caller on Jerry Springer's talk show which was part of the liberal "Air America" lineup. The subject was abortion and Jerry was entertaining the idea of a compromise on abortion. This is the one that I proposed. It's very simple. Remember - the whole idea of a compromise is that both sides have to give some ground in order to meet in the middle.
1. Pro-Aborts, Pro-Lifers and Anti-Aborts agree that a child's life begins at conception.
2. Pro-Aborts, Pro-Lifers and Anti-Aborts agree that all abortions are homicides. They kill a Child.
3. The above agreement (1&2) would be written into law using language much like the language of Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
4. All sides agree that abortions remain legal and that this compromise has afforded prenatal children their rights to due process... and their rights have now been deprived by the compromise so they can now be legally and Constitutionally killed (much like a convicted felon).
|
2
points
1. Pro-Aborts, Pro-Lifers and Anti-Aborts agree that a child's life begins at conception. Wrong 2. Pro-Aborts, Pro-Lifers and Anti-Aborts agree that an abortions are homicides. They kill a Child. Wrong because 1 is wrong. 3. The above agreement (1&2;) would be written into law using language much like the language of Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Well no, because they'd never get democratically voted in by pro-choicers. All sides agree that abortions remain legal and that this compromise has afforded prenatal children their rights to due process... and their rights have now been deprived by the compromise so they can now be legally and Constitutionally killed (much like a convicted felon). No. 2
points
Not bad, but it is not really changing anything. It doesn't set down any basic or complex laws. All it does is state that abortions are murder, but you can do it anyway. It doesn't really change that many minds! A lot of people will agree that it is murder and do it anyway, a lot refuse that it is murder and do it. You rally are not changing anything! The thought behind the compromise is that it eliminates the denials that many pro-aborts have - that an abortion kills a child. The other thing this compromise would do is this. It would afford the children in the womb their right to due process (though as a class) and that is something that they are now being denied. Of course, I never had any real expectation that either side would accept the compromise. It's mostly an academic exercise to explore the issue in a different way. 2
points
Your very premise is flawed, since no one is "pro-abortion", whatever you say. Abortion is barbaric. It destroys a potential life. It is morally wrong. We both agree on these three statements. But--and I do not now how many times I have to say this-- it is a justified homicide. Understand? 0
points
Your very premise is flawed, since no one is "pro-abortion", whatever you say. Male masturbation is barbaric. It destroys a potential life. It is morally wrong. We both agree on these three statements. But--and I do not now how many times I have to say this-- it is a justified homicide. Understand? 3
points
1
point
If life begins at conception then why are 3 month olds not called 1 year olds? Chinese starts counting age from the time of pregnancy, unlike the western system where age is calculated from the time of birth. Since the period of pregnancy can vary, the age of the child is considered to be one year at the time of birth. What you alledge: The legal definition of murder is `The unlawful killing of another human being`thus making homicide an impossibility. It is simply killing a living organism in the early stages of evolution towards becoming a human child. Yeah, I call a spade a spade and a fetus a fetus. What the fact is: (a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section. (C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. (d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. You've clearly undermined yourself here again because what you are citing is that the abortion takes place against her will. if you continued to read down to the bottom there then you will see this. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child. 1
point
1
point
1
point
I am all for compromise, but you appear to show heavy favor torwards the pro-life side of the argument. Even though i am against abortions, if we ever want to get to a good compromise, we have to do away with the idea that the can walk up to the table and say "This is the best idea, take it or leave my country" because that kind of attitude is what has made this so difficult. 1
point
So long as we continue to act like there is no reasoning behind our opponents thinking, we will get no where in these debates I believe a key problem in abortion debates is that both sides focus on differing circumstances behind the motive for aboetions. A good compromise between the two sides would be to separate the issue based on those circumstances, Makes separate debates for 1) abortions after rape 2) anortions requested after consensual sex (and mother is healty 3) abortion request due to threat to the mothers life 4) sex-selective abortion I think even the doctors who perform those procedures make a distinction between those and other more common abortions. For one thing, they generally try to save the child - even in those situations where they see the abortion as necessary. My wife had toxemia when she was pregnant with our daughter and I actually came very close to having to make that decision. |
