rjd970
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2007
- Messages
- 24,302
- Likes
- 24,341
I'm not approaching it from any "religious" angle.
To me, it boils down to this:
1. A woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases.
2. A fetus has a right to life.
Insofar as I can see, no one is evil or going to Hades at this point.
Where two equally sound rights conflict, I weigh the following:
1. Which of the two had the least self-determination from which the conflict arose?
2. Which would suffer the greatest harm, should the opposing right be favored, and theirs be infringed?
3. To what extent / degree / severity would the harm continue, and to what extent could it mitigated, if any?
Personally, I think that short of the mother's life being equally and certainly imperiled as the unborn child's - that the right to life always and justly supersedes the right to choose.
Fortunately, as I am not woman, I'll never be faced with this decision - and understand that the drafting of a bulleted list of philosophical preferences is no suitable substitute for all that would actually be required in making that decision and then living with it.
And, admittedly, I don't know what I'd think / value / believe when actually faced with that decision.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Reasonable post IMO. Not sure I totally agree with it, but very reasonable and rational.