"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
On 1 May 2004 07:15:47 -0700,
(Park Jeong-Kyo) wrote:
I think that it would be better for a child to be killed before
it is born than having it lead a terrible life.
Are you God to know the future life of that child?
Nope, but nor are we tyrants to force the future
of a woman's life.
If the mother is say, a
drug-addict or a criminal, it is surely better to have the baby
aborted so that it won't become a drug-addict or a criminal itself.
Yet not all children of drug-addicts and/or criminals become
drug-addicts and/or criminals.
True... but they don't call it the 'cycle' of addiction
and violence for nothing.
"Neglect of an effective birth control policy is a never-failing
source of poverty which, in turn, is the parent of revolution
and crime." - Aristotle, Politics, c. 350BC
If
there will be no support for the baby, and the mother doesn't think
that she wants it, then she should be able to choose to have the
abortion. It is better than having the baby lead a terrible life!
But there is the option of adoption, with which the baby would
have a chance at a wonderful life. We are not Gods to know the
future.
Pro-lifer's make much ado about the psychological
impact of abortion... well frankly adoption could
be moreso, especially considering the child would
likely find themselves in a series of foster homes...
which isn't so wonderful.
What *might be* is not grounds for killing.
And what *might be* disallowed by God isn't
grounds for allowing an increased population crisis,
and forcing women to go through a traumatic,
dangerous and life changing event known as
giving birth.
This 'reason' to support legal abortion is stupid. It plays
like a Pro-Life strawman, created to be an easy knockdown
so that the actual reasons for keeping abortion legal may be
ignored.
Perhaps it is, but it does allow for an easy segway
to the actual reasons for legal abortion if you know
how to play it. :')
.
