As of now 83.5% of the people on agree with my statement: "I want it to be legal for a poor teenager who was impregnated from being raped by an immediate family member to abort one-week after conception, if carrying to term is unsafe and a genetic disorder is detected."
That's roughly what I would have expected. But I was shocked to find out that most people disagree with this statement: "I want it to be illegal for a wealthy woman who is 5 days past her due date to get an abortion if doctors are sure that the healthy baby would be delivered safely and relatively easily and adoption is available."
Sorry Scott i wanted to be with peoples like you who are interested in philosophy but because of a my poor English I didn't understood the options given by you at first time in the polling part and get confused because of very lengthy sentence made specialized grammar of separating words between, but now understood the matter fully. The answer is 1) I do not wanted it to be legal for a poor teenager who was impregnated from being raped by an immediate family member to abort one-week after conception, if carrying to term is unsafe and a genetic disorder is detected. 2) I want it to be illegal for a wealthy woman who is 5 days past her due date to gen an abortion if doctors are sure that the healthy baby would be delivered safely and relatively easily and adoption is available.
I think from the above statement you will understand in both cases i didn't wanted the abortion initially as it is illegal. Secondly i wanted to say that law is designed according to the last possible that is the ultimate effect of the deed on the society as a whole. I think in law priority is given to the ultimate effect of the deed on the society. That is why it generally found correct though law is not also free from the emotional desires and motivation because of the involvement of humans in law making. For the first case why i wanted it to be illegal for teenager to abort. The opinion is all the person involved in the case including the teenager who is victim of rape by a family member, are criminals. What is going to happen with them according to the nature is a punishment of breaking the moral law. The abortion which is set to be operated is actually doing the wrong by letting them away from the trap of natural punishment mainly to the family members. It is not good for the society because this law can make people careless for committing this moral and social crime. In my opinion whatever disorder the would be newborn may contain, it is almost out of the matter. The children though not a criminal and may take birth with severe disorders but they have the right to come to the world. I think that because of the hate of disorder one cannot want to end their life and i think that those children cannot want to end their life whatever the disorder may be and whatever crime is committed by their parent. They are not at all responsible for that and they will still enjoy the beautiful world with their disorders. They will not get any inferiority complex instead they will make their parents feel inferior according to the natural law. For the second case i do not want to legalize that the wealthy women to abort even the doctors are saying there would be a healthy and safe delivery. The answer is the same as of first case. firstly it is illegal to abort, secondly it is illegal according to the natural law. why she is wanted to abort, it is not mentioned. When she is going to abort a birth then why she didn't taken care for not to have pregnant, i think so. Thirdly the child wanted and like to come to the world. there is some more reason that she could not have to abort is that those families wanted to adopt a child immediately after birth. Then why she is going to abort a child i didn't got the clue. Also time is very crucial element for the humans and the time had gone over 5 days to permit an abortion whatever the doctor says that there would be a safe and healthy delivery. I think it have to be mentioned earlier that why that wealthy woman is opted for abortion.
I think all the peoples in the society has to judge the matter according to the judicial point of view and not the humanitarian point of view because the people actually could not understand the matter thoroughly. They give opinion according to their emotions and emotions are actually not a perfect base to draw opinions. By the judging the matter according to the legal point of view, I think is the only we can reduce evil in the society. Otherwise we can't reduce social evils. It is my opinion. Please do not judge my psychology. whatever you want to say, say perfectly about the opinion itself or question or topic given, and not about me. I found some people here are actually interested in judging the psychology rather judging the opinion.
I think anybody could do right or wrong by analyzing the opinion, there is no need to analyzing the psychology of the opinion maker under the discussion I think this is foolishness generally exhibited by the psychologists. Psychologist has to understand they can even cross the points of psycho if he is wrong and if they have the ability to give a valid logic. Sir Scott you are from the administration that is why I am saying it to you. You didn’t did anything wrong. I only not bound to follow the rules of the forum. Raising the question about anyone's psychology is abusive, I think.