Wouldn't universal access to "The-morning-after-pill" end the vast majority of abortions? From what I've seen (and heard) it seems to - at least for most people.
I know that won't totally satisfy those who believe that a zygote is a baby - but I'd guess that most people who are against abortion - are more concerned about the termination of life on fetuses that have developed bones, a spine, a brain, a heart, skin etc. Correct?
I mean, that in the world of compromise that we live in - and in a world where we don't necessarily get everything we want, legally speaking, if a fetus is going to be terminated - wouldn't it be preferable to terminate the fetus's life while it was still a tiny collection of individual cells, smaller than the period under the question mark that ends this sentence? While it had no bones, no brain, no heart, no skin, - just a collection of identical cells? That is - IF it is going to be terminated? ETC - - -
That post is an interesting series of statements by a school teacher and parent, and may be indicative of how our society got into what, to many, seems like an insoluble dilemma. The post is long on seemingly practical logic and short on (devoid?) of morality.
In order to view such a modern societal tragedy (how many millions killed in this abortion Holocaust?) as a problem to be solved by the most practical technical and sociological means, and to quote current practices and results as evidence of the logical solutions, the person must first abandon the applicable and basic moral precepts. In doing so, one frees oneself from the restraints of moral law, which enables free-form thinking and posturing about what is most "logical".
Concomitantly, those who abuse and ignore moral principles lose the most valuable base and are forced to resort to practical logic in addressing issues far beyond cure or correction by logical means.
Who can argue the logic presented above - or rather - who even wants to argue it? Those seeking to kill Moses knew the logic, the Nazis knew the logic, Stalin was very logical - and on and on. All were long on logic and short on morality.
Many of us enjoy logical discourse and sensible/honest argument, but many will not enjoy or even engage if they have to abandon a basic moral premise in order to clear the playing field.
If we now "live in a world of compromise" as stated by the poster, it would be because we have taken the easy and cowardly way out of important moral strictures. Freedom (to base our solutions purely on logic) that is gained in such fashion seems to be a false and empty freedom.
Do I want to give up to the moral relativists? On what do we stand, to what extent do we value it, and to what extent are we teaching that foundation to our young ones? What are we giving them as a basis for thought and decisions? Are we promoting the god of logical practicality?? Not I.
