- Apr 1, 2008
- 3,525
- 638
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
We still seem to be polarising the thread a bit by opting to see only the extremities of argument:A simple 'no' would have been sufficient.
Over-generalisations of the order of...
"All dogs have tails! A cat has a tail; therefore a cat is a dog!"
Doesn't advance the issue at all.
The initial post is loaded with complex moral, ethical, philosophical and faith issues in those few lines and I would venture to suggest that most of us vacillate somewhere between the extremities of the arguments presented. We have qualified opinions on them.
I am againstabortion - BUT (and now for the qualifications) in many circumstances it is the lesser of two evils, sometimes it is unavoidable, and rarely it is even a necessity. Neither do I agree with it as a form of contraception.
Now, a simplification from an extreme conservative point of view may follow: "that if I accept abortion under some circumstances, I am for abortion; And therefore for the killing of children and the violation of ....."
Extreme liberals may argue: "that I am imposing my values on others, am violating individual choice and that I am a mugwump of the first order, and insensitive male chauvinist with no idea how a woman ......"
I am as much against abortion (particularly as a first point of birth control) as I am against two other ethical dilemmas: capital punishment and war.
These beliefs are not directly or overtly influenced by an external religious doctrine, but mostly arise from within my own values paradigm. Admittedly, that framework was formed from an Anglo concept of the Judao-Christian ethos, but I still think most people fall somewhere nearer a moderate category like that.
I also think that is where most of the protagonists in this thread reside, despite the text of their posts. Maybe they have risen more to the contest than the context.