Well said and a good point. Even with something as horrific as abortion, we shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face, and trapping two people in poverty is hardly an answer. Nor is cutting off one cheap avenue of education and birth control, probably resulting in more unwanted pregnancies and therefore more abortions. And while the baby has an inherent right to life, the mother also has an inherent right to control her own body. There is no solution to that conflict except death to the baby or slavery for the mother. (Slavery probably isn't the best description, but I don't have another term to describe someone else having control over a woman's body.) Same with father's rights. It's a damned shame that a father has no say in whether his child is aborted. Yet what solution can there be that does not infringe on the mother's rights?
So far no one has come up with a solution to end abortion that is less worse than abortion. Personally I support pregnant women renting out their wombs to the anti-abortion movement. "Don't want me to have an abortion? Let's talk dollars. How nice are you willing to make my life to save this baby?"
Note that while I am adamantly against selling people, I am perfectly willing to let people rent themselves out as long as it is of their own free will.
I've been trying to stay out of this one. While there are some people on here that I really like to engage (dank, eski, a couple others), it's just destined to turn into a insult and scoff-fest.
Here goes a few cents anyways.
1 the acorn analogy. I think it's technically accurate, and if we were dealing with any animal other than a human it would be air tight. It does break down rather quickly the further along a pregnancy is though. At some point, the difference between a baby with personal rights and a fetus with none is ONLY a matter of geography. At that point, the analogy would be more like saying "that's not a bomb, stupid, it's wrapped up in a Christmas box". It will explode when the timer goes off no matter if it has been unwrapped yet or not, its intended function does not change. In ultra late-term abortions (as rare as they may be), it really is the perfect example of "a rose by any other name..." baby, fetus.
2. The mother's right (this is why I quoted you, possum)
The argument falls short in a few instances. First, there's the same thing you've heard a million times, that we have to consider that there is more than one life involved in the decision. This leads back to personhood, another debate but one I would caution extreme care on because those rights are being decided by politicians, who never DON'T have an agenda. At the very least it shouldn't be flippant in discussions.
Second, the idea of the baby's life vs the mother's slavery. The argument that people always have control over their bodies just isn't true. If you chance breaking the law, for instance, you might have to go to prison. You can't abort your prison term on the grounds that it isn't fair to take away your control. Likewise, if you choose to have sex, you know the risks of becoming pregnant. In the same way that some think it's 'unfair' for a mother to be forced to have another person in her body living off her, the fetus didn't ask for its tenure there, nor is it responsible in any way for being there. Actually, it's extremely cold to me to distil the mother/baby relationship to that of parasite/host, and I think it's an indicator of our uneasiness about the whole thing that we've sterilized it in that way, but that's also another discussion.
Anyway, have at it I guess. I consider myself one of the most conservative people on this board, though maybe that word doesn't mean what it used to, but I do like real discussions with many of the evil nazi socialists. Is it possible or does it have to go to PMs?