Neofelis nebulosa
Lord Setar
Neofelis nebulosa
(To clarify, in reality I am Pro-abortion personal and Pro-choice Political. I wish to use the metaphorical other shoe though. So for this mule I am for all intense and purpose a Pro-lifer. I want to see and reason the debate of abortion from the otherside.
Don't bother asking my real identity (you'll probably have a good guess anyway), but suffice to say I am not considered a regular of this thread. )
For me Abortion is wrong in all curcumstances bar imminent death, or very high death risk of the woman. Consensual sex, non consensual sex, incest; none of these initial causes of impregnantion make any change to the important thing, the growing human life in the womb. To use rape as an acceptable get out clause would effectively be me condemning the sex act rather then protecting that growing life.
It is a fact of life that only women have the biological parts to carry the next generation within their own bodies.
So for that end women must be particulary careful about who and when they have sex and be aware of the possible outcome even with the additional protection of contraceptives.
The choice on her part is to weigh the risks of sex. No doubt sex plays an integral part of re-affirming close relationships, but again it is down to the woman to decide where her priorities lie; in the relationship or her wants regarding a pregnancy.(1)
Once conception has occured then we are on to a whole new ball game. What you have now is a DNA combined entity at the earliest stages of growth. It may reside inside of the women but it is now an individual. Pregnancy may be an enduring time with boldily alterations and cravings but the heavy risks associated with it are negligible. The risk do increase with the likes of obesity but once again that is usually the perogative of the women to sustain a healthy lifestyle to what she is prepared to risk. The number of women who die in child birth is worth it to ensure the survival of all those potentially aborted children.(2)
I don't see a blob of flesh floating in a womb, I see a developing, living individual to which life has already begun. To intentionally kill it is an abhorant thing to consider, in my opinion.
What we have is creation. Women are the gods of their offspring, not just their mothers. To willingly chance at something so wonderful only to dispose of it the next? Where is the respect of such an ability? More importnatly we have a new life to consider. I am aware that for lots of women pregnancy can be a scary thing but you shouldn't let your fear overtake the right to life of another. Fear that is not compounded by extreme threats to the woman's life. There is nothing wrong with being afraid but there comes a point of rational fear to irrational fear. To fear for your life such as in rape is one thing to fear for no reason then your own mental discomfort is another.
Pregnancy that results in extreme mental distress should be countered with a pyschiatric help. There are options out there besides abortion.(3)
After birth and money concerns arise as always an option is there in adoption, and before you go off about it being racist and all that, surely a life lived, albeit in not always a perfect setting, is better then having that life snuffed out?(4)
(I'll leave my pro-lifing there. For now. It's hard to digest that side and keep the flow going.)
1. It is established that consent to sex is consent to the risk of pregnancy. How is this consent irrevocable consent to carry any resulting pregnancy to term?
It is not irrevocable to consent to keeping the pregnancy to term but when a woman goes 'oh I don't want to be' and aborts why the did she chance it in the first place?
Doesn't answer the question. You're still implying that consent to the risk is irrevocable consent to carry.
Neofelis nebulosa
Lord Setar
2. You are setting inequalities in rights and, if I may make the reference, trying to have your pudding without eating your meat. Your inequalities and favoritism require a stronger justification than simply "it's a child's life!" However, this part could also be interpreted as a very intelligent reductio ad absurdum tactic. I do not know which you are using.
is that where as the woman made the choice to become pregnant the developing infant did not. And it is also down to numbers. Not to quantify in those that live but to reduce the number of death's. I'm not saying the fetii are better then the pregnant women but that I would rather save many then a few.
Lack of choice on the part of the fetus is irrelevant. The fetus is still violating the woman's rights by residing in her body without her consent.
Neofelis nebulosa
Lord Setar
3. Who universally defines tocophobia as an irrational fear? What authority do they have? Who or what gives them this authority?
Straight from the medical term sepcialising site.
Through extensive research and psychiatry phobia's are labelled and defined.
They are irrational by the nature of the phobia considered beyond a reasonable danger to the person afflicted.
Unreasonable does not necessarily mean irrational. You can have an unreasonable fear for a perfectly rational reason. Furthermore, knowing the risks and effects of pregnancy, one wonders if there is not bias in the definition, as pregnancy doesn't seem like something that shouldn't be feared.
No, not answered. Answer it.
Neofelis nebulosa
Lord Setar
4. Appeal to emotion. Further, you require a better justification than "It's ALIVE!" for this blatant inequality in rights, and then we bring in quality of life. Why do we need to just put more children into this world, when we have seven billion or so people already and really should cut back a little so we can allow the older population to die off and thus cause more resources to become available? Further, why just work to make them alive when we could try to give these children the best life we can give them, even if it means aborting to grant better quality of life later in life?
There are children in the world in need of homes because of poor sexual control of women and men. We shouldn't kill a life for the sake that we can have sex whenever we please or put that life as inconsequential because of the number of children already waiting to be adopted.
Life and quality ARE important but when we treat life like a candle to snuff out where is the show of quality if we can't care enough to consider our actions before sex?
Appeal to emotion - again. Further, there are women who have sex and plan to abort in the case of pregnancy - would this not be considering their actions? Then comes the consent question again.
100
100
50
