more comments...
« Kajunhotrodder wrote on Sunday, May 19 at 11:19 AM »
« segfault wrote on Thursday, Apr 25 at 02:54 PM »
"of entire human groups" is the key phrase there. What group is being targeted? Even if there were a movement to pressure certain groups to have abortions, the problem would be the racist pressure, not the abortion itself. In other words, most people who have abortions are not trying to wipe out any groups. They simply cannot or do not want to support a baby at that time. You claim that all fetuses are huamans, but the point at which a fetus becomes completely human and gains human rights is debatable. Many if not most fertilized eggs don't make it until birth. Birth is also a bad marker because the baby has been viable outside the womb for quite a while. The answer is somewhere in between, but where? This is the core question of the abortion debate, and I'm not sure that there is an answer. I am pro choice by default because I don't consider it my place to impose my view of this philosophical question on others, but I think that more focus on sex education and birth control is more useful than bickering over a philosophical question. To answer your question, even if the pro-choice argument was correct, the incidences of abortion would be separate incidents of murder, not even mass murder and definitely not genocide. We're talking about many individual cases, not a top-down directive. That's why people are upset. The abortion debate is relevant to the event, but the offense comes from how lightly the campaign uses the word genocide on a day set aside for remembrance of actual genocide.