Re: Re: Re: Abortion


Posted by Matski on January 27th, 2005

Can’t believe I’m getting dragged into this one …

Bruno, I agree that any position based solely on morality is ultimately indefensible in the context of liberal democracy.

Here’s what I say about abortion.

IF:

1) There was no violence against women

AND IF:

2) The costs of motherhood (and parenthood) were not perceived to be so high (expensive, loss of career, etc.)

THEN:

*) There would be absolutely no need for abortion, and we could define it, properly, as murder (except in cases of the mother’s health, etc.)

However, since the first two conditions do not (will not?) exist, we have to keep abortion safe and legal.

As a bonus, I add:

Bonus) It’s pretty obvious, isn’t it, that instead of bombing clinics, if Radicals really want to end abortion they should work for the rights of women and support social policies (such as inexpensive child care and health care) that reduce the costs of parenthood.

Alas! I really need to get back to work. Rip away, lads!


No Responses to “Re: Re: Re: Abortion”  

  1. No Comments

Leave a Reply

You must log in to post a comment.


Now Playing: Episode 356

 
 Standard Podcast [36:18m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

The Republican Convention, Fannie and Freddie go bust, and finally, our international news roundup.

Links Mentioned: Europeans try to placate the Russians … details on the bail-out … a brief history of Fannie and Freddie … Mark Schmitt on Obama’s high-risk, high-reward strategy … Biden tears it up on the trail.