Dialogue on Abortion

Aug 15




  • Share this article on Facebook
  • Share this article on Twitter
  • Share this article on Linkedin

"Dialogue on Abortion," available from: http://www.punkerslut.com

Dialogue on Abortion

By Punkerslut

Pro-Choice: "Why have you decided that conception is the point where the unborn has become a human being?"

Pro-Life: "It is the point in the reproductive process where the unborn has all of its DNA; if left to its own action,Dialogue on Abortion Articles it will come to full term and create a child."

Pro-Choice: "Your argument, then, is that when a process has been started that can create a human being, it shouldn't be interrupted?"

Pro-Life: "Correct; otherwise, to destroy the potential human is to do the same as to murder a living human.  It takes a life out of this world."

Pro-Choice: "If a man and a woman want to have sex in public, the police will interfere and stop them, in that they are committing a crime.  But, the police officer, by interfering, has prevented conception.  Would you call that an act of abortion?"

Pro-Life: "No, that would be absurd."

Pro-Choice: "It would, and I don't think anyone would willingly accept that idea, unless their prejudice is cornered and they're convinced that admitting they're wrong makes them weak.  The police officer is responsible for stopping conception.  Why would you not call this an abortion?"

Pro-Life: "Because it was before conception.  The unborn did not have all of its DNA.  It was not quite a whole human being yet."

Pro-Choice: "Does that mean, that if you were to meet or otherwise come in to contact with a human being who did not have all of their DNA, that you would have no problem killing them any more than you would kill a fly?"

Pro-Life: "That scenario is purely hypothetical and impossible."

Pro-Choice: "Hardly.  Individuals suffering from Down's Syndrome have more chromosomes than others.  Their DNA, so to speak, is not a human's complete DNA.  If someone decided that a person with Down's Syndrome was a nuisance, would you assist in the killing, because the person's DNA was malformed?"

Pro-Life: "No, that would be murder.  They are still a human being."

Pro-Choice: "You ruled earlier that a human being is made by DNA.  What is the importance of another individual having human DNA?  What is the real significance of it?"

Pro-Life: "I'm not sure."

Pro-Choice: "It certainly must be the determining factor, as the Pro-Life movement, being a religious one, generally rules that others without human DNA have no right to life.  It is on this difference that humans are given that benefit and non-human animals are not.  Are you advancing the case against abortion on the grounds that every mother, or to-be mother, has certain obligations to the unborn?"

Pro-Life: "Yes, that is the position of the Pro-Life movement."

Pro-Choice: "You fully understand and know that these obligations will require different things from each mother, correct?"

Pro-Life: "How do you mean?"

Pro-Choice: "If each mother has an absolute and equal obligation to the preservation of their children, they will each need to overcome their own barriers.  A member of the upper class would be able to use their wealth to hire servants to attend to the menial and uninteresting tasks of childcare.  And if there is something in childcare which requires their absolute attention as a parent, they possess the means to make every other part of their life continue while they focus all of their attention on their child.  The obligation on them is not quite so hard.  Consider then, on the other hand, the single mother with two jobs, or a pregnant sixteen year old living in the slums, or anyone without financial advantages -- first, the wage system demands from them all their time, and when they have few moments to spend with their child, they are additionally burdened with the cost of childcare services.  Would you say that the wealthy and the poor are standing on unequal footing when it comes to the equal obligation of preserving the unborn?"

Pro-Life: "Yes, that can certainly be admitted."

Pro-Choice: "On what ground can it be argued that enforcing this morality would be fair?"

Pro-Life: "Because it is still the murder of a human being."

Pro-Choice: "Perhaps, then, the greatest thing that any Pro-Life activist or organization can do is to improve the living and working conditions of the population so that each person would be able to meet this hypothetical 'equal obligation to the preservation of the unborn.'  All donations given on Pro-Life activism are fruitless, except in maintaining bureaucratic organizations.  The effect of Pro-Life activists reducing abortion could be enormous, if instead of protesting they worked for childcare for the underprivileged, better working conditions, fewer working hours, and higher pay for all workers."

Pro-Life: "That certainly could be true."

Pro-Choice: "Would it be fair, logical, or just to enforce a $500 tax on voting?"

Pro-Life: "Of course that would be wrong."

Pro-Choice: "Why?"

Pro-Life: "People shouldn't have to pay for voting.  The purpose of government is to allow each person fair, unobstructed participation in the decision-making process of society.  To require a burden that doesn't fall equally on all citizens is to create a class-interest government."

Pro-Choice: "Logically, it must follow then that to restrict abortion is to place an unfairly distributed burden on its citizens, correct?"

Pro-Life: "Yes, with our current social organization, that is true."

Pro-Choice: "At conception or in the lusty thoughts before coitus or during orgasm, there are many moments to decide when life has started, and they are all equally drawing from the same poor reasoning.  It is only when a being is capable of sensation and thought that it can recognize the interests of others and appreciate the sympathy of another; in a word, it is has entered the world of a community, and in that relationship, it is a moral being."



Source: Free Guest Posting Articles from ArticlesFactory.com

Article "tagged" as:


Popular Articles