First of all just how serious is the "rape victim" statistics? I mean come on. I explained clearly that abortion and the State do not mix. Democracies cannot and should not solve this question. "They are not fully human". Such elastic definitions are only paramount to how we can play in moral relativism. When the egg and sperm meet, DNA is set, so the elasticity argument is really swimming in shallow waters.
The ethics behind abortion are nothing in the realm of politics, having to do with what constitutes membership in the human race and with what rights accompany that status in our society. The "democratic process" only confuses the issue further and divides people into armed camps. Both sides concede to the State and to the mass of voters the authority to determine who’s human and who isn’t. xxxx that. Not only can one very easily imagine the State and the masses making objectively wrong decisions, but also given the fickle and arbitrary nature of bureaucrats, the masses, and the Supreme Court tyrants, a decision that’s "right" today can be "wrong" tomorrow.
A person has the right to make whatever choices they want. The State should never have interfered or gotten itself involved in anything relating to abortion. But like everything else, it must involve itself. Putting forth these kinds of fundamental questions to the democratic process amounts to denying the existence of truth itself, or at least subordinating truth to power. This happens to be the inverse of what the liberal state was originally supposed to do, to uphold certain pre existing conventional and metaphysical rights. You're basically allowing "Democracy" to do your thinking for you on what is human and what isn't.
The ethics behind abortion are nothing in the realm of politics, having to do with what constitutes membership in the human race and with what rights accompany that status in our society. The "democratic process" only confuses the issue further and divides people into armed camps. Both sides concede to the State and to the mass of voters the authority to determine who’s human and who isn’t. xxxx that. Not only can one very easily imagine the State and the masses making objectively wrong decisions, but also given the fickle and arbitrary nature of bureaucrats, the masses, and the Supreme Court tyrants, a decision that’s "right" today can be "wrong" tomorrow.
A person has the right to make whatever choices they want. The State should never have interfered or gotten itself involved in anything relating to abortion. But like everything else, it must involve itself. Putting forth these kinds of fundamental questions to the democratic process amounts to denying the existence of truth itself, or at least subordinating truth to power. This happens to be the inverse of what the liberal state was originally supposed to do, to uphold certain pre existing conventional and metaphysical rights. You're basically allowing "Democracy" to do your thinking for you on what is human and what isn't.
Comment