Talk:Abortion debate/Archive 1

message: There's something very singular about the ways people deal with the abortion issue.  Call it hypocrisy, call it a peculiarity, whatever it is I find that it is more compelling than the actual debate itself.  
Many pro-lifers draw a line in the sand and say that all fetuses (or all fetuses that have passed stage X) are human beings and deserve to live, period.  This is a perfectly rational (though not necesarrily correct) belief--certainly, I think it's a lot more rational than saying "Well, you shouldn't kill a fetus because it's a human being... unless the mother was raped or the fetus is deformed, in which case, it's perfectly ok to kill it."  A lot of people do subscribe to this line of thinking, but it's kind of hard reconcile these "exceptions" with the statement that fetuses represent human life.  Thus, when I say "pro-lifers", I will be referring to people who believe that fetuses are alive and should not be killed, period (...unless it is to save the mother's life--she is also a human being.)
The thing which intrigues me is this:  The vast majority of these pro-lifers openly deplore acts of violence against abortion clinics.  Generally speaking, these people are not pacifists.  They support war to stop human suffering. They support a cop's (or even a civilian's) right to kill someone who is killing or threatening to kill innocents. In most other circumstances they would certainly put the preservation of human life above the law.  To me, if I accept the fundamentals of western Christian-based morality and the assertion that a fetus is a human life, it would be a horribly immoral decision NOT to stop abortion doctors by whatever means necessary.  (Disclaimer: I do not accept either of these things, and I do not in any way condone attacks on abortion clinics.)
A cynic would say that people are sheep, and are merely following the herd (and the herd has deemed that abortion is wrong, but not THAT wrong, irregardless of the actual moral principles involved.)  I have a slightly more forgiving point of view:  The popularity of abortion has forced pro-lifers to accept the good intentions of the (potential) mothers and doctors involved.  They transcend the "killer" label and become regular people making a tough, morally misguided decision. Thus, taking violent action against these people becomes a much less acceptable option.
Of course, one could argue that Hitler and Osama bin Laben and certain serial killers were just doing what they thought was right, too.  The scary part is, I think that there is a lot of merit to this argument.  Abortion clinic doctors  believe they are helping women in need--they do not believe that they are killing "unborn babies."  Osama bin Laden believes that he is fighting against the forces of Satan (...or whatever.  I'm probably horribly mangling his dogma, but you get the point)--not killing innocent civilians.  
Is the humanity pro-lifers grant pro-choicers merely pragmatic--are they merely  trying (subconsciously) to avoid a civil war?  Do we declare all-out war on dictatorships and terrorist groups more easily simply because we are less able to recognize their beliefs as being noble in intent, or perhaps we're not able to view people from another culture as being 100% human?  Maybe it all boils down to the "victims"--we cannot directly see or touch or hear fetuses, whereas we remember all too clearly people jumping out of the WTC? (Yes, I'm being a horrible USA-centric person here.  Just try to bear with me.)  Certainly, I think that one can make a very convincing argument that flashy, romantic, tragic deaths are much more likely to be met with strong action than less flashy deaths (witness the famous "School violence actually went down during the 90's" and "Many more people died from car accidents during September, 2001 than died as a result of terrorism" factoids.)  
Anyway, like I said this is all a little offtopic, but I can't shake the feeling that this should be addressed by Wiki somehow.  I surfed onto this topic via a link from philosophy, and I think that this subject deserves a slightly more philosophical treatment.  Any neutral, unbiased person would realize that in the context of conventional western morality, the assertion that a being is human life has *enormous* repercussions.  I don't think that we can say "pro-lifers believe that it's murder, and it should therefore be illegal" and leave the analysis at that.   How we deal with and enforce our beliefs speaks volumes about conventional morality--much more so, in my opinion, than the side of the fence on which the majority happens to sit.
Or maybe I'm just looking for neutral ground to spout off a rant that I've never managed to get anyone to take seriously.  Meh.  
Thoughts? Opinions? Flames?
----
yer a dum-head.
Seriously tho, this isn't the place for talking about stuff like this. Its really more of a debating topic, or at best original research. I'd be glad to discuss it elsewhere if you like (I have my own unique views which might rattle your cage a bit ;). Here is a link to my contact info User:Sam Spade/Info. Sam Spade 13:08, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A somewhat offtopic, philosophical analysis 

message: What part of "post comment" doesn't wiki understand?  I suppose it's my fault for not previewing first... Too tired to figure out how split apart our posts right now, sorry...
Lode Runner
----
Huh. People do kill abortion doctors. Problem is its illegal, so thats why its not widely advocated. Anyhow, to answer your questions
#http://www.everything2.com/
#Policies on the wiki are notoriously unenforced. I think it sux, and others think its dandy. Either way, there isn't much in the way of wikipolice, just alot of ornery editors. 
Sam Spade 02:58, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  bah 

message: No mention of adoption anywhere. Shame on you guys! :P I'd work it in, but I'm a little too busy at the moment (first it'd involve actually reading it (I only searched the page for "adop") and finding a good place for it...) I personally think it's ludicrous how nearly every discussion of abortion I can remember has completely failed to mention the idea of putting up the baby for adoption. I think Wikipedia should set a better example. --Furrykef 22:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adoption