|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:43 am
I concur.
South Dakota needs to get its act together if they're really denying people their rights to bodily integrity. rolleyes
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:10 pm
SD passed that law a while ago. Old hat my friend. It's also completely unconstitiutional, btw.
The latest development that I know of is a new act, the Prevention First Act. It will mandate accurate sex ed, improve access to BC, EC and family planning services.
The idea is to reduce the need for abortions. I see this as an important step and I congratulate the right-wing both for making this necessary and those who support it, for supporting it.
The abortion debate will continue to rage, but at least this will make America's youth a little safer in the mean time.
The only problem is that it hasn't been passed yet, so there's a danger it won't XP.
Also, all these debates seem be mainly regarding surgical abortions. You are all aware there is such a thing as a chemical abortion? They use a drug called mifeprestone(NOT EC), are much more common, cheaper, and are used to terminate pregnancies earlier than surgical abortions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:59 pm
bluecherry
Yes, that's an essential point I've been trying to get across you've brought up. (Heh, I've been half tempted for a while to just post a link in this thread directing to the official abortion debate thread in Extended Discussion and get it over with, because anything we could say in here has already been said, and likely better, in there.)
I'm pretty sure nerves and brain must be not only present in some form, but developed enough to function before they actually will be able to work and process things like "pain." Also, people do not get the right to live simply because death is painful any way even if the fetus could feel pain, and it's still violating somebody else's bodily integrity any way if somebody does not wish to remain pregnant.
A quadriplegic can't be killed, true, but it's irrelevant because first, the quadriplegic has not violated anybody else's rights as far as has been indicated, and second, he/she could feel pain elsewhere in their body even if the ability to feel pain WAS what gave people the right to live, which it isn't.
You can't sue a fetus as they have no money and no way to get any and it would not accomplish the goal of ending the violation of another person's bodily integrity anyway. This is a completely circular debate, YES, the rights of the mother are being violated, but that means essentially NOTHING when you consider the points that a) killing the child would be a punishment where none is due, as the child has no intention on hurting or killing its mother, and thus punishment is not appropriate; and b) the fact remains that you ARE killing the child, whether it can feel pain or not, whether it can think or not, or whether it is developed or not, all of that is meaningless because other minorities could easily be included in the same group and therefore worthy of death if causing an inconvenience, by the same standards. I mean generally the argument defending abortion so far has been to the effect of, "the child must die because the mother has done nothing to deserve her rights being violated". That is NOT a valid point, the child's rights are just as much being violated if not MORESO when it is intentionally killed. I never said suing a baby would be practical, I wasn't the one who brought up the subject of suing. But if suing is not appropriate then there must be an alternative such as free labour or community service to repay the due fine. I suppose since you mention it this would incidentally be much more appropriate. Make the child perform unpaid labour until the fine due for its infringement is worked off. "Violating somebody else's bodily integrity" is not a pro-abortion argument, it's just the chicken or the egg -- abortion itself is a direct violation of bodily integrity, so how is that an appropriate solution to the problem? And you know, okay, I will even meet you half-way and agree that abortion should be an option for those women who are raped and will die as a direct result of the child. That like... 0.2% of abortion cases, since this is really the only case in which the pregnancy was not due in whole to the carelessness of the woman. If recklessness is to blame then why should a child die? What kind of moral lesson is that? It breeds nothing but FURTHER carelessness as abortion becomes simply "another form of birth-control". We should be trying to secure a future of equal opportunity and discipline but instead we are only preaching the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:25 am
I'm quite aware this argument is going in circles and it's frustrating me too. The point is it is, as I've said before, moot whether a violation of rights is intentional or not because just because something was intended to happen doesn't mean it's not happening. Hypothetically, suppose you were to somehow trip and fall in such a way that you had one of your hands stuck in my stomach. Also suppose I could survive staying like this for the several months it would take before you could be removed without dieing yourself and I would mostly fully recover within a few weeks after the procedure to remove you then, but to remove you any sooner would be certain death for you. Even in this case I am not required to wait and let you keep your hand stuck in me.
And actually, no, at the point of abortion it is a fetus, not a child (fetus is a scientifically accurate term, "child" is incorrect and an appeal to emotion fallacy to use it in the case you are using it) and it was never technically alive yet any way so it was not killed. And seeing as you've got a live person having their bodily integrity violated by something that can't even think or feel and is not yet even developed enough to survive on it's own without leaching off somebody else's body (against their will in cases where abortion is desired, if they person WANTED, or at least didn't mind, the fetus being in them and growing off their nutrients and such, then there is no violation of bodily integrity and thus no issue to debate in the first place) I do not see why you want to force the living person to subjugate itself to the something meeting those qualities. And exactly what other "minorities" do you intend to say would fit these descriptions? (fetuses I certainly would not call a "minority" - every person was one at some point, it's just an early developmental phase.)
A person gets rights too when they become an actual PERSON. You are counted as a living person once you first are capable of living disconnected from, separate of, the environment you grew in as a fetus. (Generally, this means when you are no longer requiring staying in a womb and being fed through umbilical cord, but in the future this may change, so I'm trying to make my definition clear enough to fit even possible future changes.) I say a fetus is best thought of as merely a POTENTIAL person. It is not yet, but left alone could become one. Abortion is mostly just like a scenario of: your firewall/whatever software should be keeping out things you do not want getting downloaded on your computer against your will (really good hacker? software wasn't as good as the sales person told you? whatever, this is like failed contraception) and on your computer screen when you run your virus detection program after some odd things start to happen with your computer (pregnancy test) a box pops up that says "program 'BABY' installing, currently 5% loaded. Estimated loading time remaining -- 8 months" and then when you decide that you really do not wish to download this program, you call and make an appointment with a computer technician who knows how to properly handle this program and he/she works on the computer and finds the program's "cancel" button and hits it (the actual abortion.) This probably will sound ridiculous of a comparison to you, but since the fetus is not a living person yet any way, you need not treat it like one, so this comparison I think fits.
No, it is not "chicken and egg" -- the fetus violated bodily integrity FIRST (even if you do count the fetus as having bodily integrity rights at that point, which I do not as I do not yet count it as a person to actually possess human rights) and that is why it is now fine to remove the fetus. Seriously, think about how it would have to work as a sentence for the violation of bodily integrity in this case to work like "chicken or the egg" -- it would have to imply a question of whether the fetus may actually have been removed before it was ever in the body of a person. You can't remove it before it is in there you must know.
That is in no way meeting me "half-way" (not that I ever asked for or wanted it. No way I'm looking to compromise on human rights. It is surely NOT due entirely to "the carelessness of the woman" as often as you put it. You can be careful and still have problems. First, condoms are a great thing and a safe enough option to count on most of the time, however, there are still cases where they break (not enough to make condoms something that isn't worth trying, but still, it happens on the unfortunate occasion). There is the morning after pill for emergencies like this, yes, but some people can not get to it in time always (consider the pharmacists who refuse to dispense it complicating matters even) or afford it. The same thing goes for all types of contraceptives. They are all pretty safe most of the time, especially using combinations of multiple forms, but it isn't (and not that I think it would be realistic to expect it to be) ever a 100% guarantee. Second, why is it only the woman's fault any way (though often I say there is really nobody at "fault")? There HAD to be a guy involved in this or there could be no fetus in the first place. And abortion is certainly not "just another form of birth control" -- it's more expensive for each single treatment, painful generally, a hassle to go through, likely to STILL get people treating the person who had an abortion differently, and can be difficult to obtain, especially for minors who may have parents try to stop them. And besides, even if it DID become easy, cheap, painless, acceptable, and easily attainable I still do not see why it would be that big a problem. True, I'd recommend the earliest possible prevention be used as a first line of defense still so to stop things before they even start, but I'd see nothing wrong with easy abortions. (It would be a great thing I'd think actually...) And finally, it sounds to me like your coming from the "child as punishment" camp (if that is not your view, please clarify and correct me) -- that by having sex something somehow wrong was done and that the baby must at least be kept all 9 months and then birthed because that is the only way to accept "responsibility" for your actions (as if abortion was not taking responsibility and dealing with what happened, whether you really were being reckless in how you went about having sex or not.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:47 pm
A few agreements and facts. I hope everyone here can acknowledge oll of these.
1. Definition of person -one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties (according to Merriam-Webster)
2. Definition of child - 1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age (Also according to M-W)
(although foetus would be the scientifically appopriate term, one may use the more emotionally charged term "child" in reference to the same)
3. Definition of Abortion - 1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation -- compare MISCARRIAGE b : induced expulsion of a human fetus. (again M-W)
4. Hopefully we can agree that a child born to unready parents will not experience the same quality of life as a child born to parents that actually want it. (Pro-lifers will consider this immaterial, but I'd like to see them acknowledge it)
5. Abortion after the 2nd trimester is illegal except in cases where it threatens the life of the mother. *Just so you know*
6. The fetus dies before it is removed from the mother's body. The only case in which it does not is a kind of abortion called induction.*also just so you know*
7. Abortions occur naturally in 15-40% of all established pregnancies (Source Plannedparenthood.org)
8. "Women have turned to abortion to end unwanted pregnancies throughout the ages. In the U.S., induced abortion was common among Native Americans, and it was legal from colonial times to the middle of the 19th century. But unclean, primitive medical practices made it very dangerous. To protect women’s lives, laws against abortion began to be passed during the mid-1800s. But by the middle of the 20th century, cleaner, more advanced medical procedures made safe abortion possible. All U.S. laws against abortion were overturned in 1973 by the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. Today, abortion is legal nationwide and is one of the safest of all available medical procedures."
(Also plannedparenthood.org)
9. Medication abortions don't always work. They may have a 3-8% failure rate. However, other forms have a failure rate of less than one percent. (Same source)
10. It is unlikely that a fetus can percieve pain before the 28th week of pregnancy (Which is in the 3rd trimester) and fetuses at and beyond the 20th week are given pain killers anyway. (same source)
Just so we're all informed. Can we all acknowledge these as facts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:47 pm
Definitions and some sourced information. That's useful stuff to introduce to the discussion. Thanks. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:46 pm
bluecherry
Definitions and some sourced information. That's useful stuff to introduce to the discussion. Thanks. biggrin Well, I was just hoping we could agree on some things and maybe clear up a few misconceptions on both sides. smile Doesn't really further us much, but it's good to be informed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:10 pm
bluecherry
I'm quite aware this argument is going in circles and it's frustrating me too. The point is it is, as I've said before, moot whether a violation of rights is intentional or not because just because something was intended to happen doesn't mean it's not happening. Hypothetically, suppose you were to somehow trip and fall in such a way that you had one of your hands stuck in my stomach. Also suppose I could survive staying like this for the several months it would take before you could be removed without dieing yourself and I would mostly fully recover within a few weeks after the procedure to remove you then, but to remove you any sooner would be certain death for you. Even in this case I am not required to wait and let you keep your hand stuck in me.
And actually, no, at the point of abortion it is a fetus, not a child (fetus is a scientifically accurate term, "child" is incorrect and an appeal to emotion fallacy to use it in the case you are using it) and it was never technically alive yet any way so it was not killed. And seeing as you've got a live person having their bodily integrity violated by something that can't even think or feel and is not yet even developed enough to survive on it's own without leaching off somebody else's body (against their will in cases where abortion is desired, if they person WANTED, or at least didn't mind, the fetus being in them and growing off their nutrients and such, then there is no violation of bodily integrity and thus no issue to debate in the first place) I do not see why you want to force the living person to subjugate itself to the something meeting those qualities. And exactly what other "minorities" do you intend to say would fit these descriptions? (fetuses I certainly would not call a "minority" - every person was one at some point, it's just an early developmental phase.)
A person gets rights too when they become an actual PERSON. You are counted as a living person once you first are capable of living disconnected from, separate of, the environment you grew in as a fetus. (Generally, this means when you are no longer requiring staying in a womb and being fed through umbilical cord, but in the future this may change, so I'm trying to make my definition clear enough to fit even possible future changes.) I say a fetus is best thought of as merely a POTENTIAL person. It is not yet, but left alone could become one. Abortion is mostly just like a scenario of: your firewall/whatever software should be keeping out things you do not want getting downloaded on your computer against your will (really good hacker? software wasn't as good as the sales person told you? whatever, this is like failed contraception) and on your computer screen when you run your virus detection program after some odd things start to happen with your computer (pregnancy test) a box pops up that says "program 'BABY' installing, currently 5% loaded. Estimated loading time remaining -- 8 months" and then when you decide that you really do not wish to download this program, you call and make an appointment with a computer technician who knows how to properly handle this program and he/she works on the computer and finds the program's "cancel" button and hits it (the actual abortion.) This probably will sound ridiculous of a comparison to you, but since the fetus is not a living person yet any way, you need not treat it like one, so this comparison I think fits.
No, it is not "chicken and egg" -- the fetus violated bodily integrity FIRST (even if you do count the fetus as having bodily integrity rights at that point, which I do not as I do not yet count it as a person to actually possess human rights) and that is why it is now fine to remove the fetus. Seriously, think about how it would have to work as a sentence for the violation of bodily integrity in this case to work like "chicken or the egg" -- it would have to imply a question of whether the fetus may actually have been removed before it was ever in the body of a person. You can't remove it before it is in there you must know.
That is in no way meeting me "half-way" (not that I ever asked for or wanted it. No way I'm looking to compromise on human rights. It is surely NOT due entirely to "the carelessness of the woman" as often as you put it. You can be careful and still have problems. First, condoms are a great thing and a safe enough option to count on most of the time, however, there are still cases where they break (not enough to make condoms something that isn't worth trying, but still, it happens on the unfortunate occasion). There is the morning after pill for emergencies like this, yes, but some people can not get to it in time always (consider the pharmacists who refuse to dispense it complicating matters even) or afford it. The same thing goes for all types of contraceptives. They are all pretty safe most of the time, especially using combinations of multiple forms, but it isn't (and not that I think it would be realistic to expect it to be) ever a 100% guarantee. Second, why is it only the woman's fault any way (though often I say there is really nobody at "fault")? There HAD to be a guy involved in this or there could be no fetus in the first place. And abortion is certainly not "just another form of birth control" -- it's more expensive for each single treatment, painful generally, a hassle to go through, likely to STILL get people treating the person who had an abortion differently, and can be difficult to obtain, especially for minors who may have parents try to stop them. And besides, even if it DID become easy, cheap, painless, acceptable, and easily attainable I still do not see why it would be that big a problem. True, I'd recommend the earliest possible prevention be used as a first line of defense still so to stop things before they even start, but I'd see nothing wrong with easy abortions. (It would be a great thing I'd think actually...) And finally, it sounds to me like your coming from the "child as punishment" camp (if that is not your view, please clarify and correct me) -- that by having sex something somehow wrong was done and that the baby must at least be kept all 9 months and then birthed because that is the only way to accept "responsibility" for your actions (as if abortion was not taking responsibility and dealing with what happened, whether you really were being reckless in how you went about having sex or not.)A lot of flaws in your argument. You stated that one is considered a person when it is capable of living disconnected from the womb -- why, and according to who? Perhaps what needs to change is the definition of "person" then, because it is hardly anyone's place to say what IS a person and what ISN'T. Remember when women weren't people? What about if someone is pregnant and I come up to them and punch them in the gut really hard? The "fetus" dies. But wait, I thought fetuses couldn't die? Hm, anyway, I didn't kill or hurt the mother so I haven't really done anything wrong, according to you. A fetus is not a person yet because it can't live on it's own then in your opinion. Any reason you can name to explain why fetuses are not people can easily apply to someone else who IS considered a person. I guess institutionalized retards aren't people either, and neither are quadruplegics, nor are the dying. A very radical perspective if you ask me. Also, please prove that a fetus can't live on its own at the time of its abortion -- is it given a fair trial? No And you're wrong; the fetus, at the time of its abortion, is UNABLE to violate its mother's right to live. So killing the fetus before it actually harms anyone is even more hideous. If the case is not rape, 100% of the time (that I can think of, including all of your examples) there was a preventable mistake. You can't DO things, KNOWING there is a chance of something unfortunate to happen, and just HOPE that it won't. Condoms are effective but not surefire, so then by using one YOU are taking a chance. Birth-control pills are effective but not surefire, so you're taking a chance. You don't go out at 4AM and drive on the sidewalk, and HOPE you won't hit someone because the chances are minimal. To make sure you don't hit someone, the surefire way is to NOT drive on the side-walk, there, crisis averted. Can't get pregnant no matter what? Don't have sex, because sex was invented so we could have children. And hey, if you absolutely MUST have your cake and eat it too (a stupid catch-phrase really, if you are eating cake then wouldn't you say that you "have" it? Anyway...) there's another precaution you can take to get it on without taking a chance -- get your tubes tied for Christ's sake (and the potential child's). It is careless and immoral to have sex and just KILL whatever the product of your entertainment is. Don't like something so you kill it? Sounds like a great life lesson. Are you really so desensitized that you see NO PROBLEM with people getting regular abortions, adding up to millions of pounds of wasted human body matter per week, so that people can continue being total sluts? As if we really need to make new ways for society to ENCOURAGE sluttiness. Why is it only the woman's fault? Please, don't play the sexist card. Of course sometimes the father is to blame for abortions, in the case that he has control over the woman and FORCES her to kill the fetus, but last time I checked -- Arnold Schwarzenegger not included -- the fetus is always in the WOMAN's womb and statistics would likely show that the woman is most often to choose abortion. Not that I know, I'm just assuming reasonably. If the man is incidentally responsible for a large ratio of abortions then yes, I will point the finger equally at the father.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:31 pm
Efstathios A few agreements and facts. I hope everyone here can acknowledge oll of these. 1. Definition of person -one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties (according to Merriam-Webster) 2. Definition of child - 1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant 2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age (Also according to M-W) (although foetus would be the scientifically appopriate term, one may use the more emotionally charged term "child" in reference to the same) 3. Definition of Abortion - 1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation -- compare MISCARRIAGE b : induced expulsion of a human fetus. (again M-W) 4. Hopefully we can agree that a child born to unready parents will not experience the same quality of life as a child born to parents that actually want it. (Pro-lifers will consider this immaterial, but I'd like to see them acknowledge it) 5. Abortion after the 2nd trimester is illegal except in cases where it threatens the life of the mother. *Just so you know* 6. The fetus dies before it is removed from the mother's body. The only case in which it does not is a kind of abortion called induction.*also just so you know* 7. Abortions occur naturally in 15-40% of all established pregnancies (Source Plannedparenthood.org) 8. "Women have turned to abortion to end unwanted pregnancies throughout the ages. In the U.S., induced abortion was common among Native Americans, and it was legal from colonial times to the middle of the 19th century. But unclean, primitive medical practices made it very dangerous. To protect women’s lives, laws against abortion began to be passed during the mid-1800s. But by the middle of the 20th century, cleaner, more advanced medical procedures made safe abortion possible. All U.S. laws against abortion were overturned in 1973 by the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. Today, abortion is legal nationwide and is one of the safest of all available medical procedures." (Also plannedparenthood.org) 9. Medication abortions don't always work. They may have a 3-8% failure rate. However, other forms have a failure rate of less than one percent. (Same source) 10. It is unlikely that a fetus can percieve pain before the 28th week of pregnancy (Which is in the 3rd trimester) and fetuses at and beyond the 20th week are given pain killers anyway. (same source) Just so we're all informed. Can we all acknowledge these as facts? Of course I can acknowledge, in fact I generally support the data you posted. I find that, while on surface it appears to support abortion, much of it is actually detrimental to the argument upon a closer look. Thank you first and foremost for proving that a child, and a person, DOES include those who are not yet born. At least now we can all acknowledge that abortion is killing PEOPLE. While unwanted children MAY -- and probably WILL -- experience a "lower quality of life" in their childhood, let's also bear in mind that a) the child still has personal rights and a standard of living which the parents must allow him, and b) that says nothing of, and has little or no link to, the child's adult life, his future accomplishments and his ultimate quality of life post-childhood. I never realized that abortion was legal after the 2nd trimester in some cases, that just further disgusts me. Indeed, abortions have been taking place throughout history. And of course they are one of the safest medical procedures -- for one of the persons involved (not so safe for the other I'm afraid). I just hope you weren't attempting to defend abortion with that point -- "it's okay because we've been doing it for a long time" is not a very sound argument lol We've been massacring homosexuals, enslaving jews and Christians, and impaling drug-users for a really, really long time. Most would now maintain that these practises are inhumane and outdated, and defending them saying that "we've been doing it for a long time" probably isn't the best defensive evidence. But if your point was -- as I took it -- that the issue of abortion is simply nothing new, of course I'll agree! Medication-induced abortions have a high failure rate? That's like the electric-chair failing 3-8% of the time (that all ya got, pansy? lol @ Sin City) Dare I ask what happens to the fetus to qualify as "failure"... gonk And finally, just because the fetus doesn't feel pain (or as you put it is "unlikely" to) is not at all grounds to justify its death. Murder is murder whether felt or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:54 pm
As has been stated before in another thread.
That is the one sticking point between you and I. You view death as a punishment, perhaps even fear it. I enjoy life certainly, but would welcome death. I don't think consciousness ends at death and I can't wait to get back to "God" as you would put it.
I view death in the case of abortion and death penalties as a mercy to someone who, if they lived, would likely not have a very enjoyable life and be a detriment to others. Within these same beliefs that I hold, I believe in the immortality of the soul. I think that the soul bound for an aborted child will just have to try again. Which is why I view it as the duty of the parent not to have a child to whom they can't give the very best.
Everything above is pure opinion/supposition, and the one thing that keeps you and I as a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer on opposite sides of the fence.
Let me ask you to agree on one more thing though.
It would be completely immoral to force people to have abortions. A woman should always have the right to not have an abortion.
But you would force them to do the opposite. Forcing someone to do something against their will is immoral to me, but apparently not to you.
**edit** A failed abortion means that the pregnancy continues. Usually in that case they'll just try again, though. I was just posting a few facts, trying (I suppose a bit unsuccessfully) to remain neutral about the info, in that post at least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:20 pm
Even if you count a fetus as a person, I would still not concede to abortion being murder at all as I'd say they do not yet count as a real whole living person (not as in "oh look! a quadriplegic! They don't count as a whole person so we can kill them!" - "Whole" as in too developmentally incomplete to survive without using somebody else's body constantly) and so can not be killed and do not yet have rights any way. And on top of that, even if you did count the fetus as being a live person with rights, they still violated somebody else's bodily integrity first and thus the resulting death of the fetus by removing it from the other person's body would not count as an actual "murder" because killing in self defense doesn't count for murder.mur·der mur·der [múrdər] n (plural mur·ders) 1. crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:44 pm
bluecherry
Even if you count a fetus as a person, I would still not concede to abortion being murder at all as I'd say they do not yet count as a real whole living person (not as in "oh look! a quadriplegic! They don't count as a whole person so we can kill them!" - "Whole" as in too developmentally incomplete to survive without using somebody else's body constantly) and so can not be killed and do not yet have rights any way. And on top of that, even if you did count the fetus as being a live person with rights, they still violated somebody else's bodily integrity first and thus the resulting death of the fetus by removing it from the other person's body would not count as an actual "murder" because killing in self defense doesn't count for murder.mur·der mur·der [múrdər] n (plural mur·ders) 1. crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. And see here you are reverting back to a circular argument (albeit an even tighter circle this time as I just explained this). The child is NOT invading its mother's bodily integrity first. Even a "developed" fetus is consuming just 300 calories per 24 hours, so a child at the time it is aborted is presumably living on under 100 calories per day. Losing 100 calories per day is NOT interfering with bodily integrity, not even a child's bodily integrity is damaged with a loss of 100 calories per day. In fact I think a lot of Americans could manage to give up many times as much calories every day -- hell, technically helping someone lose calories could be CONTRIBUTING to their bodily integrity. No, the child is not posing a lethal risk to its mother at all in this early stage -- while the abortionist is reaching inside the womb and vacuuming out the fetus (usually a much harsher method), which I would maintain IS damaging a person's bodily integrity and, in fact, killing them (in a very brutal and inhumane manner, mind you -- generally the fetus is ripped limb-from-limb, quite literally, before it dies). So now "developmentally incomplete" constitutes as a non-person? Okay, so then you advocate the killing of underdeveloped infants, retards with underdeveloped brains, and cripples with undeveloped limbs as well. Maybe even midgets, if you consider. And you should probably be out fighting against welfare, immigration, and health-care, because those are institutions that we are forced into paying for by the government to help people develop and live. The social and moral equivalent of abortion would be to accept the boats of immigrants into American ports and then promptly send them all back systematically. Since we are ALL forced to pay for them to come to our country and live on welfare, this is a violation of our rights just like unwanted births. Actually you would have a much better argument there to be honest, no-one's dying in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:02 pm
Efstathios As has been stated before in another thread. That is the one sticking point between you and I. You view death as a punishment, perhaps even fear it. I enjoy life certainly, but would welcome death. I don't think consciousness ends at death and I can't wait to get back to "God" as you would put it. I view death in the case of abortion and death penalties as a mercy to someone who, if they lived, would likely not have a very enjoyable life and be a detriment to others. Within these same beliefs that I hold, I believe in the immortality of the soul. I think that the soul bound for an aborted child will just have to try again. Which is why I view it as the duty of the parent not to have a child to whom they can't give the very best. Everything above is pure opinion/supposition, and the one thing that keeps you and I as a pro-lifer and a pro-choicer on opposite sides of the fence. Let me ask you to agree on one more thing though. It would be completely immoral to force people to have abortions. A woman should always have the right to not have an abortion. But you would force them to do the opposite. Forcing someone to do something against their will is immoral to me, but apparently not to you. **edit** A failed abortion means that the pregnancy continues. Usually in that case they'll just try again, though. I was just posting a few facts, trying (I suppose a bit unsuccessfully) to remain neutral about the info, in that post at least. I don't know why you'd come to the conclusion that I fear death or view it as a punishment (which I do in many cases), simply because I express that everyone should be given the chance to live when their time comes. If you truly believe in Almighty God as I do, I don't see how you could possibly support the pro-abortion perspective. According to the Bible God Himself said to Jeremiah, "before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you". God recognizes us each as people long before our birth. From a Christian perspective abortion is always murder as the child is not only innocent of sin, but has done nothing to warrant his death in God's eyes. Sure, I suppose it's immoral to force people to do things in almost all cases, but that means relatively nothing in the grand scheme of things. Firstly, I assume most would agree the intentional killing of an innocent is almost ALWAYS worse than forcing someone to do something against their will. Second, who is forcing a woman to do something against her will in this case? It is because of HER OWN acts that she is pregnant (please, I'm talking about 99% of the time here, don't divert the subject with technicalities), and because of her own acts that she is obligated to give birth to the life she created. We are not forcing her to give birth, NATURE is, because when we have sex we are supposed to give birth. That is nature's law (or more accurately God's law), not an oppressive law made by man. Third, and finally, abortion is still forcing a child to die, against its will, as it is never given an alternate choice whatsoever; so it brings the moral question all the way back to the beginning again -- who is really being forced? And who is committing the greater evil? In the VERY RARE case that someone is going to die, why should it be the child? Whose place is it to dictate that? For those of us with Faith in our hearts, here are some more Biblical passages in which God tells us what He thinks about abortion (*sigh*, yes I realize they're not ABOUT abortion, but they still answer the question): Psalm 127:3 -- "Behold, children are a gift of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward." Deuteronomy 24:16 -- "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:43 am
NOCTVRNVS I don't know why you'd come to the conclusion that I fear death or view it as a punishment (which I do in many cases), simply because I express that everyone should be given the chance to live when their time comes. You have said several times that death is a punishment. That is why I thought you viewed death as a punishment. I agree with you that everyone should be given a chance to live when their time comes, we just disagree as to when that time is. You think it is conception, I think it is birth. NOCTVRNVS If you truly believe in Almighty God as I do, I don't see how you could possibly support the pro-abortion perspective. According to the Bible God Himself said to Jeremiah, "before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you". God recognizes us each as people long before our birth. From a Christian perspective abortion is always murder as the child is not only innocent of sin, but has done nothing to warrant his death in God's eyes. I am not a chrisian and do not believe the bible to be literal fact. Also the bible has no place in secular law. This is not a theocracy, so what the bible says only applies to chrisians, not to everyone else. Excommunicate members who get abortions and kindly do not impose your religion on the land of the free. Even if I went along with your arguement, I would still believe, that the child, being innocent does not deserve the punishment of being born underprivileged and unwanted. The child deserves to be born to loving, caring, responsible and capable parents. It is innocent of sin and has done nothing to warrent being born to parents that will throw it in a trash can or prostitute it to support a drug habit. NOCTVRNVS Sure, I suppose it's immoral to force people to do things in almost all cases, but that means relatively nothing in the grand scheme of things. Firstly, I assume most would agree the intentional killing of an innocent is almost ALWAYS worse than forcing someone to do something against their will. Give me liberty or give me death. That answer your question? NOCTVRNVS Second, who is forcing a woman to do something against her will in this case? It is because of HER OWN acts that she is pregnant (please, I'm talking about 99% of the time here, don't divert the subject with technicalities), and because of her own acts that she is obligated to give birth to the life she created. We are not forcing her to give birth, NATURE is, because when we have sex we are supposed to give birth. That is nature's law (or more accurately God's law), not an oppressive law made by man. True enough. I'm surprised to see a republican giving a damn (pardon my language) about natural law though. You do realize that natural law is also survival of the strongest? Under natural law the baby deserves death because it is the weaker.I suppose you are also against chemo for cancer patients, because they did something (say smoking) to get cancer, so by nature's law they got cancer and will die. NOCTVRNVS Third, and finally, abortion is still forcing a child to die, against its will, as it is never given an alternate choice whatsoever; so it brings the moral question all the way back to the beginning again -- who is really being forced? And who is committing the greater evil? In the VERY RARE case that someone is going to die, why should it be the child? Whose place is it to dictate that? The child when aborted has no coginitive capacity and thus no will. And when someone is going to die it should be the mother's choice whether it herself or the child. Morally it should be the child who lives, but this is a test for the mother and it is not our place to judge. I can quote scripture too. "Thou shalt not judge" NOCTVRNVS For those of us with Faith in our hearts, here are some more Biblical passages in which God tells us what He thinks about abortion (*sigh*, yes I realize they're not ABOUT abortion, but they still answer the question): Psalm 127:3 -- "Behold, children are a gift of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward." Deuteronomy 24:16 -- "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin." In the case where the children are wanted, then sure. Use the psalm as a praise or a blessing. In the case of Deuteronomy, as it is talking about fathers, I assume it means born children. Do not take it out of context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:36 pm
Efstathios NOCTVRNVS I don't know why you'd come to the conclusion that I fear death or view it as a punishment (which I do in many cases), simply because I express that everyone should be given the chance to live when their time comes. You have said several times that death is a punishment. That is why I thought you viewed death as a punishment. I agree with you that everyone should be given a chance to live when their time comes, we just disagree as to when that time is. You think it is conception, I think it is birth. NOCTVRNVS If you truly believe in Almighty God as I do, I don't see how you could possibly support the pro-abortion perspective. According to the Bible God Himself said to Jeremiah, "before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you". God recognizes us each as people long before our birth. From a Christian perspective abortion is always murder as the child is not only innocent of sin, but has done nothing to warrant his death in God's eyes. I am not a chrisian and do not believe the bible to be literal fact. Also the bible has no place in secular law. This is not a theocracy, so what the bible says only applies to chrisians, not to everyone else. Excommunicate members who get abortions and kindly do not impose your religion on the land of the free. Even if I went along with your arguement, I would still believe, that the child, being innocent does not deserve the punishment of being born underprivileged and unwanted. The child deserves to be born to loving, caring, responsible and capable parents. It is innocent of sin and has done nothing to warrent being born to parents that will throw it in a trash can or prostitute it to support a drug habit. NOCTVRNVS Sure, I suppose it's immoral to force people to do things in almost all cases, but that means relatively nothing in the grand scheme of things. Firstly, I assume most would agree the intentional killing of an innocent is almost ALWAYS worse than forcing someone to do something against their will. Give me liberty or give me death. That answer your question? NOCTVRNVS Second, who is forcing a woman to do something against her will in this case? It is because of HER OWN acts that she is pregnant (please, I'm talking about 99% of the time here, don't divert the subject with technicalities), and because of her own acts that she is obligated to give birth to the life she created. We are not forcing her to give birth, NATURE is, because when we have sex we are supposed to give birth. That is nature's law (or more accurately God's law), not an oppressive law made by man. True enough. I'm surprised to see a republican giving a damn (pardon my language) about natural law though. You do realize that natural law is also survival of the strongest? Under natural law the baby deserves death because it is the weaker.I suppose you are also against chemo for cancer patients, because they did something (say smoking) to get cancer, so by nature's law they got cancer and will die. NOCTVRNVS Third, and finally, abortion is still forcing a child to die, against its will, as it is never given an alternate choice whatsoever; so it brings the moral question all the way back to the beginning again -- who is really being forced? And who is committing the greater evil? In the VERY RARE case that someone is going to die, why should it be the child? Whose place is it to dictate that? The child when aborted has no coginitive capacity and thus no will. And when someone is going to die it should be the mother's choice whether it herself or the child. Morally it should be the child who lives, but this is a test for the mother and it is not our place to judge. I can quote scripture too. "Thou shalt not judge" NOCTVRNVS For those of us with Faith in our hearts, here are some more Biblical passages in which God tells us what He thinks about abortion (*sigh*, yes I realize they're not ABOUT abortion, but they still answer the question): Psalm 127:3 -- "Behold, children are a gift of the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward." Deuteronomy 24:16 -- "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin." In the case where the children are wanted, then sure. Use the psalm as a praise or a blessing. In the case of Deuteronomy, as it is talking about fathers, I assume it means born children. Do not take it out of context. Sure, of course death can be used as a punishment -- does that mean it IS a punishment? confused Going to your room can be a punishment when you're a kid, but then again you go to your room to sleep too. You're not religious, that's fine, no need to get indignant about it. You did reference God in your last post so I'm sure you can see where my assumption is based. Fact remains, for people who believe in it God's Word according to the Bible dictates against abortion. The child being unappreciated is totally irrelevant to the case of abortion as the Bible sees it; abusing the child would be a sin on the heads of the parents, while the child has not necessarily done anything wrong. He deserves a chance regardless of his environment because, abused or not, every person has the capacity to follow the way of God, which is the reason for life in the first place. It is the sinful parents who will be truly punished while the child, granted it follows the right path, will find peace. Under natural law the baby does not die, you're incorrect. Firstly, it does not benefit the human species to kill the child, and second, surgical procedures are not considered natural law to begin with. As for cancer, chemotherapy I know little of, and care little for. Putting chemicals in your body may help numb your cancer but it can't be too good for you otherwise. It wouldn't much bother me if we just let nature take its course with these things, which I am saying with a few of my relatives dead from smoking-induced cancer. They got plenty of chemo but my grandmother still died at 60. But in either case, your comparison is ridiculous! Chemotherapy PREVENTS death. Abortion IS death; it does not prevent death even if it saves the mother's life, because it only saves her by killing someone else. Kind of like how the president's bodyguard doesn't prevent death, he just prevents the PRESIDENT's death by dying himself. I'd like to see you prove that children being aborted have no will. You can't, because all children that have been aborted are (surprise) dead! Pure speculation. And I wonder, if it's not our place to judge then why is it okay to judge who is to die in this situation? Which was my question in the first place. We are not to judge which innocent must die, when the decision will make itself anyway. On the same day, two children were born in Austria -- one was perfect and beautiful, the other was diagnosed with Down syndrome. At the time abortion was illegal, Thank God -- the normal child was named Adolf Hitler. Now, the other would have been aborted instead. Why is it not okay to judge women who kill their own children, while it's fine to judge infants before they are even born? And besides, let's face it. If the child was two years old, as opposed to unborn, would you still think it was okay for the mother to decide which of them is going to die in a situation where it is definite? Such as holding her child up as protection from a gunshot. Or jumping off a burning building on top of her child to prevent her from dying. You obviously don't understand "taking scripture out of context". If you are capable of understanding the concept of a parable then there is no question as to what "nor shall children be put to death for their fathers" means. Never should a person's life be taken because of the acts of their father (or mother in this case), which is exactly what abortion is. If the child is not being put to death because of the actions of his mother or father, then WHY is the child being put to death? Don't even answer that because there is no answer, other than that abortion is killing a child because of the actions of his mother. As for the Psalm, yes, it is a song -- one about the gift of children who are sacred. Pretty sure God didn't give us a gift so that we could vacuum it out of our cunts and toss it in the trash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
