The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I don't assume lending an uterus to be a more life changing thing than what fathers have to do (law enforced) for a child, when comparing the effect with the 9 months uterus lending plus a from-the-birth-bed-away adoption. And it is as well a kind of responsibility you can't get otherwise. So fathers have by law enforcement higher burdens to shoulder for a pregnancy than mothers (which are none at all, if you assume that abortion is unregulated). To make it similar, you can chose, if fathers get the right to just run away if the mother wants to get the baby against the will of the father or if they can demand the mother to abort.
----------------------------- Although I disagree with you, I can accept when people don't think embryos are humans. I can't accept that people find it OK to kill them, if they assume they are humans. One of my arguments for protecting embryos is the eroding of respect for life, so if you feel insulted to be compared with an embryo, it is unlikely that this has consequences in other cases, and it is unlikely that you have this opinion only because of convinience. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
--------------------------------------
There are several different meanings to the term human, and they tend to get confused - partly because they are partially overlapping.
As it happens, I do think that a human embryo is more valuable than - say - a pig embryo. For instance, I think that a human child with a mental handicap that puts it on the level of a chimpanzee (as far as we can measure, and keeping in mind that measuring mental prowess is hardly an exact science) should still be accorded more rights and protection than a chimp. In short, I think that careful thought must be given before terminating a viable human embryo, and I think that there is an ethical case to be made against abortion.
But at the present time, there is also a powerful ethical case to be made for it, just as there is a powerful ethical case to be made for the practise of infanticide by some pre-industrial cultures in areas and ages of tightly constrained carrying capacity. As technology changes, that may change - in fact I hope that it will. But that will be then, and now is now.
And the fact that an ethical issue can be argued both ways with almost equally compelling arguments leads me to believe that the decision should be made by the individual person, not the government.
If a woman thinks abortion is wrong, full stop, she can refrain from having one (forcing women to have abortions is probably an even bigger abomination than prohibiting them). If, on the other hand, she thinks that, on balance, she would rather not have the child, and finds that position ethically defensible, then I cannot in good conscience claim that she is obviously and clearly in the wrong.
Thus, I cannot in good conscience approve of the state using its power to prevent her from doing it, even in cases where I would disagree with her about the ethical soundness of the position she takes. The alternative would set a standard for government interference in both private matters and matters of conscience that I would find greatly troubling.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 23 3 comments
by gmoke - Apr 22
by Oui - Apr 251 comment
by Oui - Apr 258 comments
by Oui - Apr 241 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 233 comments
by Oui - Apr 238 comments
by Oui - Apr 222 comments
by Oui - Apr 22
by Oui - Apr 2111 comments
by Oui - Apr 21
by Oui - Apr 20
by Oui - Apr 192 comments
by Oui - Apr 197 comments
by Oui - Apr 18
by Oui - Apr 17
by Oui - Apr 162 comments
by Oui - Apr 1618 comments
by Oui - Apr 156 comments
by Oui - Apr 14
by Oui - Apr 145 comments