OpEdNews - Page 9 of Article: Why Funding for Abortions is Essential to the Nation's Health

Here's one of your classics: "No, the vivisectioning of inconvenient unborn and calling it progress is completely wrong and morally corrupt. Telling the woman (and the man, too) that there is a duty to finish what they started hardly qualifies as the human-rights violation of the century." Really? Your use of the phrase, "vivisectioning of inconvenient unborn" certainly looks like an emotional appeal. And for you to assert, "Telling the woman (and the man, too) that there is a duty to finish what they started", is such a primitive stand that I can hardly believe any reasonable person would assert it. But then, I suppose, since you asserted it, it follows that you are not among them.

It is striking that your stances does not even accommodate cases of rape and incest, which indicates that you are an extremist of the worst sort. Nor, of course, do you consider that pregnancies can occur in spite of a couple's best efforts to forestall it. Yet you would punish them with a (minimal) eighteen year commitment, which does not take into account their age or standing in the community, the resources at their disposal or their family situations. You discount the possible occurrence of serious birth defects, which are another important motive that justifies the use of abortion.

You appear to qualify as a moral and mental Neanderthal, if I may say so, by displaying a profound dislike for ordinary human relationships between men and women. It is no leap of logic to infer that you believe that sex is appropriate for the purpose of procreation exclusively and that, in any other case, it qualifies as casual or even promiscuous, thereby completely discounting sexual relations as an expression of affection within the context of a romantic and loving relationship. Egad! Reading your posts even suggests that you may think women become pregnant IN ORDER TO HAVE ABORTIONS!

Does it not occur to you that, in a matter this personal and this profound, such decisions should be left in the hands of a woman and her physician? You would require that a woman carry a fetus to term REGARDLESS OF HER SITUATION. Let us hope that most libertarians and liberals are not contaminated by the anti-sex and inhumane motives that drive you to treat women as instruments of reproduction who are not entitled to exercise control over their own bodies.

The essence of morality is treating other persons with respect. I have explained why zygotes, embryos, and early term fetuses do not properly qualify as persons and why third-trimester fetuses are persons but their "right to life" does not outweigh the right to life and health of the woman bearing them. You, by contrast, appear to have no respect for women as persons and their right to control their own bodies. That is a stunning indictment of your moral limitations, but let us hope that others are not corrupted by your grossly immoral stance.

Posted by: James Fetzer | 2009-07-29 1:08:20 PM

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9