On May 18, 2005, at 12:21 PM, I wrote:
On May 18, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Are you
arguing that it is for society to decide who is human and who isn't, and
then proceed accordingly?
Isn't that, rather, the thrust of *your* argument? A decision that a fetus past a certain number of days is human, full stop, and that's all there is to discuss? That's how it looks from this side.
I think I just glimmed it here. Is your position, Dan, that not specifically protecting the unborn (late term) is essentially a decision to *rob* them of their humanity, to strip them of their innate right to life (whether defined as a legal custom or something divinely granted)? That not specifically forbidding third-trimester abortions except in the case of mortal need is, in essence, a sin of omission?
If so I think I might have a better sense of the source of your objection to supporting "free-range" abortion.
How about laws that clearly define what "health of the mother" is meant to express? Would that help your discomfort? (If so, all we need to do is settle on that definition ... and 50,000 pages later we'd probably have a good start, knowing the legal system as I do. ;)
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
