Some days, I'm glad I'm not a fetus
Here John Henke of QandO.net rebuts the talking points of the Left. I would like to think that they will come up with logical, or at least reasonable, arguments before the floor vote. I know that they won't; the arguments made today off the top of Howard Dean's head will be the ones parroted for the next month.
Ya know, the very fact that these are the first arguments to come to mind would make a logical person consider them critically. The whole point of rational thought is to reach better conclusions that the ones tossed off by the schizophrenic firing of neurons on an hour's notice. Since the Disloyal Opposition has been incapable of rational thought since 2003, I don't reckon they'll refine their ideas none before then.
So for the next month, we will be subjected to the raving of B students as they one by one come to reach the conclusions that were already disproved on day one. I prefer to move on to a discussion of the libertarian position on abortion, as it is mare interesting than a DC hackfest.
There is not, of course, a unified libertarian position on abortion, so I'll discuss my own. It involves quite a bit of cognitive dissonance, so you may want to partake of your drug of choice first.
The point at which a fetus becomes a human being is a secondary issue, which I believe I have dissected before (pun intentional). Before this point, abortion is dandy; afterwards, it is murder. This may occur during the first intertwining of DNA, when the fetus is a unicellular organism. It may occur when brain waves allow it to decide "I think, therefore I am."
Scientific evidence, I think, is closing in on late term abortions. Of course, even if they are considered living humans at that stage, killing is not always murder and is subject to fine print and loopholes provided by your rabbi/priest/pastor/guru/man on a flaming pie.
In cases where science cannot really say, "this thing has rights," we must use informed judgement.
However, informed judgement is not absolute certainty, and we cannot legislate on informed judgement. Oh, we do so today. It's a bad idea to pollute, so anyone with an error code in their car's computer cannot recieve a sticker that allows them to drive on highways built with funds stolen from said driver.
But in the libertarian view, such needless mucking with the lives of others is akin to slavery. So we cannot base laws on our own opinions. In the ideal state, we would not make laws at all, but that is not useful for this discussion.
"But abortion is MURDER! We cannot allow it!"
Yes, we can allow murder. Doing nothing is not an escape. The easy way out is to ban abortion and feel good about ourselves. The hard decision is to give other people the benefit of the doubt, to allow them to do utterly insane, reprehensible things no matter what our personal feelings. This is not a just a philosophical position; it is a moral absolute.
We (Christians) may be morally obligated to stop murder, rape, theft, and slavery wherever we find them, but inflicting our beliefs on others IS slavery whereas first-trimester abortion MIGHT BE murder.
"It IS MURDER!!!!"
Yes, BUT we do not know that with the certainty required to use force. We can use guilt, logic, emotional appeals, sonograms, scientific data, and every non-dirty trick in the book, but we cannot use force in this situation.
I am very interested in hearing any comments.