|
Post by Hilly on Aug 8, 2004 5:23:41 GMT -5
A person is a person, I don't care if he or she is 80 years old or 80 seconds old, you can't just kill someone with a darn good reason. An 80 year old person is self aware, to equate that to an "80 second old person" does a grave injustice to that 80 year olds life. And please don't tell me about the potential life of the "80 second year old person" because after the abortion that point would become irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Superhappyjen on Aug 8, 2004 10:25:35 GMT -5
ccg
What if the person who is pregnant is a child. Say, 13 years old. A 13-year-old is not old enough legally to make adult decisions. A 13-year-old may not be educated enough to understand the consequences of her actions. Should there be an exception, in your view, in this case?
And if you are not pro-choice you are anti-choice. That is the option that best describes your view.
|
|
|
Post by ccg111777 on Aug 8, 2004 11:11:04 GMT -5
I don't think self-awareness matters one bit. A person is person whether they are aware of it or not. I'm not self-aware when I am sleeping, that doesn't mean its ok to slit my throat in my sleep, though I know some people would really like to Eventually you would expect I would wake up and regain my ability to go on about my life and make my own choices and such. I think of our early stages the same way. Eventually you expect a child to become self-aware and be able to make choices and so on. It's not right for someone to be able "pick them off" just because they are temporarily in hibernation mode. This is an unfornuate situation, to be sure, but its not the end of the world. The solutions is not to allow abortions, but do a better job of educating our kids. Government finnancial assistance would also help if done in a way that doesn't encourage kids to have kids. Maybe make them sit through a bunch of boring sex-ed classes before they can get the money. There is never a perfect solution to social problems, you know, but I think this a pretty good one. I can't agree with this statement. You're either pro-choice or anti-choice? I don't think so. Choice is great. We should be able to have as much choice as possible. We have the abiltiy to choose everytime we comit to doing something. However, we aslo have the ability to choose to do things that are unfair to others. So what we do is provide disinsentives for people to choose doing those unfair things. There really is no being"anti-choice" beause we have the choice to accept the dissentives or try to avoid the dissinsentives, and go on doing what we want to do anyway. If you think that makes me anti-choice, then I guess in you're eyes I'm anti-choice, but I don't believe it makes me anti-choice, so I am not going select the anti-choice option.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Aug 8, 2004 11:32:35 GMT -5
ccg, imagine this. What if a pregnant mother learns that giving birth to the child will kill her? She can abort the foetus and live or give birth and die. Is it your opinion that she is duty bound to die so the child may live? Is it murder for her to favour her life?
I almost forgot to add, if she aborted the foetus would you try her for murder and send her to jail?
|
|
|
Post by ccg111777 on Aug 8, 2004 11:59:52 GMT -5
I tell you. You guys are really making me work today.
You must have not read all my other posts or maybe I wasn't clear enough. I believe we all have the right to fight for our own survival. That is our ultimate right. No other interest or right can take this away from us. We always have the right to do what it takesbut not necessarily more to ensure that we go one living. So basically if, a doctor tells you, that if you have a baby and there is a 10% chance it can kill you, then its every baby and mother for themselves as far as I concerned. Its got to be a significant percent chance, though. I don't know maybe five or six percent chance. But the mother has to have some chance of dying. Basically it would be the self-defense defense for murder.
so to answer your next question, anytime a woman had I would hold her responsible for murder. I these self-dense cases, would never be prosecuted because after the state does their ilittle investigation and the doctor ensures that she would have died had she not had the abortion, then the state does not even have the right to try her because they have no case.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Aug 8, 2004 13:49:59 GMT -5
Let's say that a woman get's raped and becomes pregnant. Now following your logic, if that woman has an abortion it is unjustified murder. So let's say that that woman has the baby but then drives out into the wilderness and abandons the baby there.
She didn't want the baby, but she did her duty and allowed the baby to be born. She isn't responsible for it though, as her rape was not likely and foreseeable. So the baby must then take responsibility for itself. It is true that a baby can't care for itself, but that's the baby's problem, and father's responsibility, not the mother's. The mother is abdicated from caring for the child.
In your opinion, is it fine for the mother to do this, or not? If not, explain please.
|
|
|
Post by breezanne on Aug 8, 2004 21:27:45 GMT -5
ccg, If you honestly think that the "fundamental disagreement" is between people who think it wrong and people who think it right to "slaughter" and "butcher" "babies" ... such a sensationalist misconception can be attributed to your failure to perceive the sensitive and "complex" nature of the issue. You did say "Its my opinion that at conception we have all we need to grow independently and that is why I think we become people at that time."
At the moment of conception, "we" are anything but independent; we basically consist of a set of instructions, a recipe, posted in a convenient location. We are not people ... but, within days, we might become a guest organism, which might eventually develop into an independent human being if and only if a host grants us suitable food and lodging enabling us to grow (quite dependently) for at least the next 5 months (much longer, if we are to become a healthy human being). You can debate many things, but you cannot debate who OWNS the womb a blastocyst must attach itself to for food and lodging. The owner of that womb can choose to either provide or deny such food and lodging, as she sees fit ... this CHOICE is made possible by modern medical care and by progressive law. She owns her womb just as surely as YOU own YOUR reproductive organs, does she not? Shall we have the government dictating to you how to use your organs? Seriously, now. You are properly called anti-choice if you are against a woman's right to choose how and when to use her own womb.
We are not discussing "killing babies and children." You pose it thus to make a dramatic point, but it is a false one. Many forms of abortion (induced AND spontaneous) occur so early that it is the simple passing of a zygote, morula, or blastocyst, not even an implanted embryo yet, much less a fetus, and certainly not a baby or a child. The line at which a fetus gains "rights" is certainly subject to debate, but to place that line at conception is to demonstrate that you have a naive and distorted view of reproduction, and that you lack understanding and compassion and respect for existing human beings. Pardon the firmness of my opinion, and I'll pardon the firmness of yours.
By your philosophy, you could put a recipe in a baker's dish and call it pie, eat a fresh-laid egg and say your stomach was full of chicken dinner, build a house out of acorns/seedlings instead of lumber, bury a lump of coal deep in the yard and tell your fiancee her diamond is out there (she can dig it up in "a few years"). You're a sly one, you are.
People are not pro-choice because they are less concerned about ACTUAL babies than you are... often, they are even MORE concerned about actual babies (and have a clear primary goal of minimizing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, so that every baby born is a WANTED baby). People are not pro-abortion... it is just an effective last resort to minimize the number of unwanted babies.
Pro-choice people understand risk and responsibility as well as you. That is not the point. "Mistake or rape" is irrelevant to the embryo you are so determined to preserve. Your distinction (however reluctant) between those two cases is ONLY related to the mother's culpability, and you'd (perhaps) allow her to CHOOSE in one case, and NOT in the other. The LACK OF CHOICE is the punishment you'd impose ... the negation of her right to ownership of her own body parts. Of course being pregnant is not a punishment in itself (aside from its "punishing" effects on the female body, pregnancy is commonly a source of great joy). And of course, sometimes an unfortunate accident turns into a blessing... I agree. But that is not the point either. Such a turn of events depends on the WOMAN and the SITUATION ... and YOU do not KNOW that woman OR her situation, OR her perspective. You do not know WHY she seeks an abortion, and since it does not make ANY difference to the embryo, NEITHER should it make any difference to YOU.
A magnified case to consider: A woman is raped and conceives a child each year of her reproductive life. In times past, this was not such an impossibility... women could literally be forced to bear the child of any man who could make it happen. Do you like that idea? By your "ideal" rules, if any product of conception (from zygote on) has all the rights of a full human being, a woman could basically be required to spend her life as a vessel for "others," with all the attendant physical, mental, and emotional risks and effects on herself, and then the responsibility of raising all those children (or did I hear you volunteer to raise them for her?). All of this, in spite of the last resort we do have available, of early and safe and legal abortion. You can argue against her right to choose that last resort, guided by her own judgment, regarding her own body parts, but I never will. We have had laws against abortion (ironically, they are often found in conjunction with a lack of support for contraception, that anti-sex stance again). As others have said, such laws do not end abortions, they simply make them much more devastating than they need to be. Most women have a natural sense of ownership of their own bodies, and laws which say otherwise will not endure long in civilized parts of the world.
g'night
|
|
|
Post by Theodore Doxford on Aug 9, 2004 1:54:22 GMT -5
It's up to the woman.
............but I feel that the time limit should be reduced(I think it's around 24weeks here) to around 20 weeks.
|
|
|
Post by ccg111777 on Aug 9, 2004 10:26:21 GMT -5
I don't think this. The fundamental disagreement it has to do with when someone becomes a person and when they get the right to live. I did not say this! I said SEPARATE and DEPENDENT human live. That is part of the reason I am against about is because the separate life depends on the mother for sustience. I've heard this argument before, back in college and I can't stand it. First of all even tresspassers have the right to live. You can't just kill a tresspasser just they are tresspassing common law saws that law in every jurisdiction today uphold this priniciple. You can't use deadly force against someone unless you have good reason to beleive that your own life is threatened. To evict someone in such early stages of their lives is absolutely deadly force. A landlord owns an apartment. The tenant does not. However, the tenant has rights in the apartment for the term of the lease. We allows this because the apartment is the tenant's HOME. The landlord can't just evict someone just on the basis that he owns the premises. That is called wrongful eviction. You can't let someone in and allow them to rely on having residency then tell them to get out early. See the analogy? Don't tell me that a mother doesn't agree to have the baby in the womb, because the mother and the father together have brought this person, or whatever you want to call it, into existence. She actually puts it there. So she gives life but then she wants to take it away? That doesn't seem fair to me at all. Tthe ABSOLUTE WORST AGUMENT is the one used most often. I'm talking about the "It's my body" argument. The idea being that if it involves someones body then they should be able to do whatever they want with it. (sorry for the harshness, but this is absurd) Here are some hypos. 1. just robbed and bank and my defense is, "It's my body. Dont' tell me what to do with it." 2. I planted a bomb on a school bus. Am I going to get off on the "Its my body defense?" 3. What if we allowed this justification for rapists, murderers, and guys like Bin Laden and Hitler? This is like something a five year old would say. And I did many times back then. But I guess to you guys that makes me inconsistent. Not allowing free choice to be a defense in certain circumstances doesn't destroy choice it doesn't take choice away, it just provides more consequences for certain choices. I don't know how many times I've said this, but it seems like no one wants to listen to me at all on this point. I've said that this the fundmental disagreement is "who and what constitues a person." You say you disagree with me and I can accept that. You say the points I make are false and I can't accept that. Its truly a matter of opinion. This not math, its philosophy. I can't find your analogies convincing. They may be persuasive for you, but different people are persuaded by different things. Even if i was to concede that a fetus or a zyogote or fertilized egg, is not a person. It would be difficult to covince me that fetus and zygotes still don't deserve the same protection that full grown people do. I've tried to compromise my differences with opposing views, but then I am called inconsistent. So I withdraw, the compromises and I am close-minded and callous. I can take the it though. I've gotten used to verbal abuse. I've picked a bad time to get really involved in this board. I'm getting sucked in a little too much and I have some big exams in the next couple days. Then I am going on vacation, So after today I probably won't be posting on here for about a month. So you'll be with out your token right-wing guy for awhile. I didn't want to be a token right-wing guy. I was hoping there would be some other conservative aethist in this world, but i guess I am the only one. Anyways everyone take care until then.
|
|
|
Post by breezanne on Aug 9, 2004 12:22:06 GMT -5
Hi ccg, In Reply #29, first paragraph, you did say "Its my opinion that at conception we have all we need to grow independently and that is why I think we become people at that time." I simply quoted you.
Your trespasser/renter/robber/bomber/rapist/murderer analogies break down rapidly when you try to apply them to a woman's personal internal uterus, and the gradual process of reproduction (with associated effects on women's bodies and lives). There is little support for abortion near the point of independent viability of a fetus anyway, and even then it is for the life/health of the mother. And you may have heard the argument that a woman owns her own body, but that does not mean that you understand it yet. Your analogies simply restate your opinion that a human being becomes equivalent to all other human beings at the point of conception, and that any harm or "lack of welcome" beyond that point is the "slaughter" of a "baby." That's just one step away from "every sperm is sacred." But you mistake POTENTIAL as equivalent to ACTUAL. If potential weighs more strongly for you than the freedom of actual strongly affected humans, so be it.
If you want to try to understand the other valid way of looking at it, you can just read the posts of myself and others again. It is EASY to be simplistic, and Boolean, especially in surface philosophy ... and I think you are being quite simplistic. It is much harder, and closer to wise, to recognize complexity, and seek a sensitive and reasonable balance between opposing interests. Remember this, if you ever become a judge ... and then you might become a good one. I do wish you luck on your exams, and a great vacation. Thanks for exchanging ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Superhappyjen on Aug 10, 2004 10:23:10 GMT -5
breezanne, yours is the most accurate and eloquant argument I've seen on this board. You've expressed exactly how I feel on the subject and added some new stuff I hadn't thought about. Hugs Jen
|
|
|
Post by breezanne on Aug 11, 2004 6:08:37 GMT -5
Thank you very much, Jen. You are most kind.
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on Sept 1, 2004 21:30:20 GMT -5
Hi all, just hopped on. Nice discussion...
ccg, you seem to be quite preoccupied with the concept of "potential." That a zygote has the "potential" to become a human being with its own life. So, chew on this.
Every time a woman menustrates, an egg is expelled from her uterus out into the world and inevitably dies if it isn't dead already. (And yes, that egg is a cell, which is alive.) That egg, if combined with a sperm, would most likely grow up into a baby. So it has potential to become something that will become a living thinking human being. According to your logic, a woman (or in most cases girl) must get fertilize EVERY egg she carries until the time when she stops ovulating, or those eggs--those potential human beings--are being wasted and destroyed. Would it be a CRIME for this woman not to get pregnant from the day she starts her periods--or before, if she wants to catch that first egg?
After all, according to you, her body isn't under her 100 percent authority, so what's to stop people from forcing a law that every girl must fertilize every egg she has? After all, there are potential lives at stake here. Every one of those eggs could become a person. But do you seriously know anyone who has impregnated every egg? I hope not.
So, what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by BangoSkank19 on Sept 6, 2004 22:16:32 GMT -5
I'm pro-choice.
If I may quote the film that led me to open-atheism: "A woman's body is her own ___ing business."
|
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Sept 21, 2004 18:50:54 GMT -5
I also think that the Father/ person who got her pregnant, should not have an opinion in this issue. I hope you mean that the man should not have any legal rights in the matter. But that he should not have an opinion in the issue? That's kind of funny really. I mean not having an opinion. We seem to have an opinion about everything else!! Why shouldn't we now?
|
|