| If your government condones the use of lethal punishment in applying the law, then how can they morally justify preventing access to abortions? Both are reactive solutions to problems. More emphasis needs to be placed on PRO-active solutions that prevent the pregnancy or crime happening in the first place.
Where the abortion argument falls down is on the issue of rape. If you give the mother a choice to terminate in the case of rape, then you must allow that same right to all mothers. Take away the right for termination of rape children and you take away the free will of the mother. \It is a catch 22\
No one ever gets everything they want and usually people don't turn out to support anything unless it directly affects them. If you want to retain the right to terminate a rape fetus then you must accept that some desperate girls will turn to abortion to 'correct a mistake'. Take away that ability to 'correct' for everyone you are still left with the paradox of a government that imposes the death penalty - a much worse crime than abortion.
Frankly all killing is wrong, but life is precious and we shouldn't enforce moralistic rules on people when we have the technology to help them. It is just forcing your views on someone else. People should be allowed the right to chose, not be condemned for getting themselves into trouble. If you're going to take that attitude why don't we just institute a death penalty across the board for ALL convicted felony? Why .. because that would be unfair - AND so is telling a 16 yr old girl 'sorry hon, although we can help you we're not going to because we think it will set a bad example' - FU*K YOU! who are you to tell me what I can do? Why is your liberty allowed to infringe on mine when mine cannot infringe on yours? |