The second contemporary issue effected my understanding but noot my principles on abortion. I would say that my principles didn't really need adjusting, but rather I needed to have a deeper understanding of where my principles were derived from. I would say that Noonan's posistion was least consistant with my own principles because he says that a fetus does not have the abillity to speak for itself and therefore needs representation. I disagree with this perspective because I feel that a fetus is not yet a person or even a sentient being and therefore is entitled to no representation. So to me his point is null and void. I feel that the only real justification for pro life advocacy is an argument based on decency, not morality. More specifically, decency in the level of grotesqueness of the abortion. If a baby's skull needs to be crushed in order to abort the pregnancy, then the baby should not be aborted. Also if the baby has become a fully concious being then it should not be aborted. Other then these two circumstances I am fully supportive of the pro choice argument presented by Warren.
I commeneted on Jess Biondi's blog
i agree with you that woman should have the choice to get an abortion because a fetus isnt a person yet so they arent killing a person. I think that abortion should be allowed to a certain extent, Women should not be getting an abortion a month before their baby is due becuase at that point the baby could be born and live. That to me is immoral because then you are technically killing someone.
ReplyDelete