The question I have then is how can your priorities be so screwed up. If you believe that an aborted child is a living person that ought to be entitled to all the rights of any living person... how is it more important to defend, on the STATE LEVEL nonetheless, the convenience of the mother to not have to undergo an ultrasound?
We are talking about saving lives. That is not an emotional appeal, it's a question of priorities.
It is an emotional appeal.
If I said you could assure that no child would ever be aborted again, would you give up the protection to our right to free speech, to religion, and to bare arms?
There's been some positive movement in terms of women doing this choosing not to have an abortion (I am curious if MrV's numbers come from women who elected to have this done or were forced to. I imagine if its the former, mentality of that person largely impacts that number). That said, the precedent it states in regards to what it allows the government to do, in my mind, creates a governmental setup that over the long term would be more harmful to so many people (including those who are not aborted) that essentially you're punishing, wrongly imho because its being done in a way that government shouldn't work, tens of thousands of people in order to save some. You're depriving the rights of tens of thousands so that you can save that life.
To me there are options, perhaps not as good but still good options, that can still work towards saving those lives that also doesn't damage the world that those lives would be born into and which doesn't take away the rights of some to save the life of another.
This notion of "We need to give up your rights so we can save a life" is a similar argument that's used for universal health care. "Oh, but there are poor people who can't afford health care and would thus die in the streets so you should give up your rights, allow government to take over health care and mandate you use the government form or pay huge fines, and pay for it by having more of your money taxed...but its okay that we're depriving you of some of your rights because its saving some lives".
I value that life and I appreciate that life. But you have to weigh both the benefits and harms of both sides, and you also have to step back and see if this is the only answer or if there are other answers out there that could be workable that DON'T do the kind of additional harm this one would.
Here's a hypothetical analogy for you. Say we lived in a screwed up country where it was perfectly legal to kill anyone under the age of five. I own a gun, I like to pop a cap in a few annoying kids every day... no biggie. It's legal.
....alright. (First issue by the way...my ass would move out of such a country.I'd have no desire to live under such a social contract)
Would you be against Virginia implementing laws that tried to curb the rate of child murder, even if they meant a larger government?
Massively depends on the type of laws. I don't necessarily have issues with laws that would curb abortion...I have issues with this particular thing.
If the method of trying to curb child murder involved not only just increasing government, but establishing that they could force us to purchase goods and services or undergo actions for primarily political reasons just to be able to spend our money or use our rights...I would likely oppose it unless there was absolutely no other way to have any positive effect what so ever on curbing such murder.
OK, the topic is not the lean of other posters guys.
