« Religion: None | Main | "Jesus' Wife" Fragment Forgery? »

October 11, 2012

Comments

"The medical advance raises the moral dilemma of whether it is right to end pregnancies which could result in a healthy child, or to lower the window and rob some women of the right to make their own choice."

I think this is a case of if you accept a certain viewpoint for sake of argument, you accept all the assumptions underlying that viewpoint.

In this case, the quote above contains a bevy of assumptions that upon further consideration don't hold up. Chief among them, the phrase, "rob some women of the right to make their own choice".

This assumes that women have the right to make their own choice, and in fact they do not. Remember, in the preceding sentence, the author of the quote already acknowledges that the thing growing inside the womb is a living being, so the assumption becomes a subjective determination of the value of a baby's life. Is the baby's right to a healthy, sustainable life more or less important than a woman's desire to end the pregnancy?

Hence, the absurdity of determining the answer to this discussion on the basis of technological capability...I for one think it's an abomination that society is even having this discussion, although I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I mean, the human race has a sordid track record of child sacrifice, murder, and worse...this is the same thing, just couched under fine-sounding terms and so-called "enlightenment", "rights", etc...

But how on earth do advancements in science outside of a mother change the value and rights of the human being growing inside a mother?

This was the first question that popped into my head. I think that technology advancements will put pressure on those opting for the "right" to choose death because it presents another viable, reasonable option that must be outright rejected. Lawmakers will have difficulty ignoring viable, reasonable options - as they appear to be doing here.

In Canada, it would have no effect.

Our definition of person apecifically states post birth. There is no determiniation of viability, so pushing viability back a few weeks would not be relevant from a legal point of view.

"Our definition of person apecifically states post birth. There is no determiniation of viability, so pushing viability back a few weeks would not be relevant from a legal point of view."

Except the point of the article was not to question the legal aspect of such a move but the moral aspect of it, which laws do not & cannot determine.

Also, out of curiosity, does Canada have the same double standard in this regard as the U.S., in that in some cases the death of a pre-born baby is classified as a murder (or double murder if a pregnant woman is killed), whereas in others it is simply regarded as a lump of cells?

Darth Dutch

I guess I understand from a legal standpoint but morally, not so sure.

During WWII Jews weren't classed as humans either, that's how the Holocaust was ok from a legal point of view. I suppose Adolf Hitler wasn't so bad a politician after all. I dread to think what future generations will say about us.

The comments to this entry are closed.