No, it's not relevant. It's a red herring. Social structure, or lack thereof, does not have any effect on what rights, if any, a fetus should have.
So, do you also support overturning Brown v. Board of Education? After all, social structure, or lack thereof, does not have any effect on rights, correct?
Without emancipation of the slaves, the surrounding social structure is moot. Without ending abortion, the surrounding social structure is moot. We can deal with the issues as they arise.
Actually, the whole point of decisions like Brown v. BoE was that these sorts of things are NOT moot. They are critical. They are inherently relevant.
And if we had educated the slave owners then perhaps the slave issue would only be a minor problem today. If we educated the NAZIS, then perhaps the concentration camps would only hold Jews rather than exterminate them. If we educated the ancient Greeks and Romans, perhaps we'd have seen a slight reduction in the number of infants "exposed" to death. Given my views on where life begins, your suggestion is wholly inadequate.
I have news for you, sir. Roe v. Wade is now lodged in as Supreme Court precedent. You are still a ways off from overturning that decision. Would you care to do something in the meantime, or don't you care about the lives of fetuses that much?
There are steps you could take without infringing on the rights of slave owners. There are steps you could take to reduce slave injuries right now, even under Dred Scott v. Sanford. The abolitionist crowd is so shallow in their conception of the issue, and you reflect that here. If you provided tasers instead of whips, researched inexpensive security fences, if the police force and the Fugitive Slave Laws weren't already so massively underfunded and overwhelmed, if there were social support systems in place for the owners like affordable runaway reconciliation services or standard low-cost/high efficiency punishment plans, maybe you could save many of those slaves that way, in a way that wasn't divisive or that took away the rights of a human being to make his or her own property decisions. For someone that really wanted to save slaves from pain, these options would be on the table, absolutely. For someone that just wanted to get on a soapbox and harangue other people, they'd probably be where you are, in denial of the relevance of these sorts of ideas.
Actually, of course, these things did occur stepwise. Now, it appears, you'd like to undo the steps. Instead of learning from history, and seeing that a) you can accomplish a lot at the same time as you work for a larger victory, b) you could demonstrate that this was actually born from conviction and passion rather than malice and perhaps actually win people over to supporting your now unpopular cause this way, and c) achieving your stated goal without making corresponding social improvements leads to misery for the very group you are allegedly attempting to save, you just push on blindly like a horse being whipped. In the wake of Emancipation and the end of the Civil War, lynchings rose to an all-time high. Prohibition of abortions is going to lead to increased suicide among young mothers, deaths from illegal abortions, murders by fathers and husbands. For someone who claims to be interested in preserving life, you seem remarkably unconcerned about these things. There will be increases in premature babies and unhealthy babies. You are also going to see more babies left in dumpsters, at hospitals and churches, malnourished by incompetent or impoverished mothers, and more babies that are victims of abuse. That these things will happen is beyond doubt. Yet you don't care at all. Do you think this might affect someone who is ambivalent to Roe v. Wade and their consideration of possibly supporting your efforts, to see you completely and willfully ignore these things?
You said, "you arrived at the conclusion that your points are so objectively better than anyone else's that yours should be enshrined into law." I said, "I realize that I'll probably never change your viewpoint on the issue, but that's no reason to stay silent. History has shown us that views can change."
Of course you won't. Your policy will lead to misery and you are stating very clearly that you know and do not care. How in the world could anyone in good conscience decide to take up with such a position?
Furthermore, you would like Roe v. Wade overturned. You said just that. That means that you are in favor of rescinding the federally guaranteed fundamental right of a woman to have an abortion. This is where you decide for someone else that your opinion supercedes theirs. I asked you how you can justify that position. You have yet to answer.
You accused me of thinking that I was objectively better than anyone else, when my admission that I probably won't persuade others is a recognition of others to arrive at a rational conclusion. Your accusations are indeed the opposite of what I actually posted.
Not at all. You are openly stating your desire to inflict your opinion on others. You would like to take someone who does not agree with your definition of where life begins and make their opinion irrelevant. As a pro-choice person myself, I couldn't care less if you disagree with my opinion about when life begins. My position does not force itself upon you. You and everyone else remain free to pursue whatever personal path you like. However, this is not reciprocated by your position. You are not content to hold a personal disgust against abortion. You want to overturn Roe v. Wade. That's a whole different ballgame. It is arrogance and I'd like to see where you can even begin to justify it.
You don't get an answer until you LEARN TO READ.
No, I won't get an answer because you don't have one. Yours is a bankrupt philosophy. I will certainly grant you have the right to hold a different opinion on when life begins. I also certainly support you in your efforts to convince people that your opinion on when life begins is better than some other opinion. Honestly, best of luck with that. It's fine with me. However, when you decide that your opinion must be reflected in the law, I think you need to answer the question about how your opinion is objectively demonstrable as so exceedingly right that no other personal opinion on the matter can be allowed to hold sway under the law.
