quote:
Originally posted by Ron P.:
For that matter if you are black and your population growth is stagnant because black babies are aborted at 3 times the rate of whites how could you be in favor of a holocaust involving your own race?
I don't see any holocaust here. Nobody in government is forcing people to have their babies aborted, and there's no significant push in that direction - not enough to be worth mentioning, much less get a law passed. A woman still has every right to bear her child; the pro-choice argument is that she also has the right
not to do so.
Consider this: both blastocysts (the soccer ball) and cancerous tumors are bodies that results from certain biological processes. They're made of undifferentiated stem cells that feed on the host's resources and multiply rapidly. To form, they require nothing except genetics and a little bit of luck. They have no capacity for thought, cannot survive on their own, and can endanger the host's life under certain conditions.
Obviously, you won't find many people protesting cancer removal. These procedures save lives and only risk harm to the people who decide to use them. We don't hesitate to interfere with this particular part of nature, because the natural result is destructive and often painful.
An embryo isn't the same as a tumor. It also isn't the same as a breathing, thinking person. The debate only exists because it
isn't clearly defined, and turning either side into the villain isn't going to convince many people.
Personally, I favor pro-choice, but I see where the pro-lifers are coming from. (The potential for life part, not the naturalist argument.)
EDIT: I just realized how old this is... My apologies for the dredge.
- and yes - I am fully aware that this isn't the political forum.
