Because a girl’s only dream is to eat a lot without getting fat.
Jeffrey wasn’t sure why no one would hang around with him anymore. Maybe it was his new deodorant?
wine makes me sleepy zzzzzzz
[Very interesting article. I think it does a good job of addressing how just because people say their antichoice beliefs aren’t influenced by religion doesn’t mean that’s necessarily true, and in fact a truly secular position cannot be antichoice.]
The Declaration of Independence asserts our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but conflicts between these rights are commonplace. The extreme pro-life, anti-abortion position states that if there’s a conflict between an embryo’s right to life and the liberty of adults, for instance a woman’s freedom to terminate pregnancy, life always trumps liberty.
Pro-choice advocates obviously believe otherwise. What, they ask, establishes the overriding value attached to a newly fertilized ovum that requires women to bear the children of rapists, and to possibly sacrifice their health and life opportunities to raise an unwanted child? Why should the continued existence of an insentient group of cells have priority over the interests of a woman?
The pro-life answer—their basic argument against abortion (and embryonic stem cell research)—is straightforward: embryos, babies, children, and adults are all stages of human life. All these stages are equally alive, they all are human, and therefore, the reasoning goes, all have equal worth. But are all stages of human life equally worthy of protection, and if so, why?
This question has particular bite since the right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade is under increasing pressure. The recent Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Carhart banning late-term abortion by intact dilation and extraction allows no exception for a woman’s health. Why, one wonders, should the manner of a fetus’ destruction take priority over an adult’s physical safety?
Under Roe v. Wade, laws prohibiting abortion must still allow exceptions for threats to a woman’s life, if not her health. Such exceptions implicitly accord more value to a sentient, autonomous individual than the fetus. This is unsurprising, since unless ideology intrudes, we naturally feel more concern for a person with fully developed capacities and a network of established relationships than we do for an entity possessing neither. It isn’t difficult to decide between these two very different stages of human life when faced with a stark choice about which should live. The psychological and practical costs of death are simply much higher in one case than the other.
But the question remains whether there are other interests besides the life of the mother that might outweigh the continued existence of the embryo, for instance, her health and her desire not to raise an unwanted child. In the case of stem cells, the interests at stake are the potential medical benefits to millions that might come from research that requires the destruction of embryos. Pro-life forces generally discount such interests, while the pro-choice, pro-research forces believe they count more than the embryo’s survival.
This is so long but so good for anyone looking for a logical thought process about the legality of abortion.