|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:52 am
Aiko_Kaida However, the law requires that you offer help only if doing so doesn't put you at risk of injury or death. Since pregnancy does put people at risk of injury and death the comparison still stands. I just wanted to point out that some places do require you to offer aid when it doesn't put you at risk. My point, which I'm not sure I really made clear, is that most pregnancies do not carry a risk of injury or death--no more a present, unavoidable risk of injury or death than walking down the street. That old lady you help cross the street could be armed and rob you at gunpoint, but this is so unlikely that refusing to help her on that premise is ridiculous. The fetus you become pregnant with could kill you, but the probability is so small that you have no right to assume it will happen and kill it in "pre-emptive self defence." If a young man knocks on my door in the middle of the night, I have no right to shoot him because he might be a burglar.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:23 pm
Tiger of the Fire Again with the "forcing?" Its been said time and again Waters, we don't want to force her to keep a pregnancy she dosn't want. We just don't want a legally supported idea that allows her to kill said pregnancy. I don't see the difference. If you don't want to brush your teeth every day, but I support a law that requires everyone to brush their teeth at least twice a day, I am trying to force people to brush their teeth, and such a law would force you to do something you don't want to do. I might think of such a law as something that is good for everyone, but to you it would feel like you were being forced. You might not think of it as forcing women to keep pregnancies they don't want, but to a woman who doesn't want to continue a pregnancy, but can't legally terminate it, it would sure feel like she was being forced. It's all a matter of perspective. If you feel that my use of the word "force" is incorrect, what term is better? How should I describe "using legal means to keep someone from doing something"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:25 pm
La Veuve Zin Aiko_Kaida However, the law requires that you offer help only if doing so doesn't put you at risk of injury or death. Since pregnancy does put people at risk of injury and death the comparison still stands. I just wanted to point out that some places do require you to offer aid when it doesn't put you at risk. My point, which I'm not sure I really made clear, is that most pregnancies do not carry a risk of injury or death--no more a present, unavoidable risk of injury or death than walking down the street. That old lady you help cross the street could be armed and rob you at gunpoint, but this is so unlikely that refusing to help her on that premise is ridiculous. The fetus you become pregnant with could kill you, but the probability is so small that you have no right to assume it will happen and kill it in "pre-emptive self defence." If a young man knocks on my door in the middle of the night, I have no right to shoot him because he might be a burglar. I have to agree, in that I don't see abortion as self defense, unless you are dying from the pregnancy. I do see abortion as acting upon bodily integrity though, just not as self defense. Every pregnancy carries a risk of death, but so does every car ride...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:54 am
WatersMoon110 You might not think of it as forcing women to keep pregnancies they don't want, but to a woman who doesn't want to continue a pregnancy, but can't legally terminate it, it would sure feel like she was being forced. No, I agree, it is basically forcing a woman to remain pregnant. But as I think I mentioned before, the motivation behind this is not that we want all women to be pregnant (or else we'd be raping them with turkey basters). The motivation is to let the fetus live. If it were possible for a woman to remove an unwanted fetus and let it develop in an incubator, that would be great, I'd have no problem with it and I doubt any prolifers would. The problem with using the words "forcing women to keep pregnancies" is that it implies (even unintentionally) that the whole point is for women to be pregnant. If you referred to "forcing women to keep their fetuses alive," that would be closer to the pro-life goal. I've never met a pro-lifer who wants all women to be pregnant, and I don't ever want to be pregnant. If your goal was only forcing women to stay pregnant, you'd have to want to force them to get pregnant in the first place, and nobody's advocating rape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 8:16 am
La Veuve Zin WatersMoon110 You might not think of it as forcing women to keep pregnancies they don't want, but to a woman who doesn't want to continue a pregnancy, but can't legally terminate it, it would sure feel like she was being forced. No, I agree, it is basically forcing a woman to remain pregnant. But as I think I mentioned before, the motivation behind this is not that we want all women to be pregnant (or else we'd be raping them with turkey basters). The motivation is to let the fetus live. If it were possible for a woman to remove an unwanted fetus and let it develop in an incubator, that would be great, I'd have no problem with it and I doubt any prolifers would. The problem with using the words "forcing women to keep pregnancies" is that it implies (even unintentionally) that the whole point is for women to be pregnant. If you referred to "forcing women to keep their fetuses alive," that would be closer to the pro-life goal. I've never met a pro-lifer who wants all women to be pregnant, and I don't ever want to be pregnant. If your goal was only forcing women to stay pregnant, you'd have to want to force them to get pregnant in the first place, and nobody's advocating rape. Yes, thank you. I agree that the goal is to force women to allow any unexpected pregnancies to continue, not to force anyone to become pregnant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:51 pm
La Veuve Zin WatersMoon110 You might not think of it as forcing women to keep pregnancies they don't want, but to a woman who doesn't want to continue a pregnancy, but can't legally terminate it, it would sure feel like she was being forced. No, I agree, it is basically forcing a woman to remain pregnant. But as I think I mentioned before, the motivation behind this is not that we want all women to be pregnant (or else we'd be raping them with turkey basters). The motivation is to let the fetus live. If it were possible for a woman to remove an unwanted fetus and let it develop in an incubator, that would be great, I'd have no problem with it and I doubt any prolifers would. The problem with using the words "forcing women to keep pregnancies" is that it implies (even unintentionally) that the whole point is for women to be pregnant. If you referred to "forcing women to keep their fetuses alive," that would be closer to the pro-life goal. I've never met a pro-lifer who wants all women to be pregnant, and I don't ever want to be pregnant. If your goal was only forcing women to stay pregnant, you'd have to want to force them to get pregnant in the first place, and nobody's advocating rape. Yah, it's not that we want to force woman to stay pregnant, we just don't think that they should end a life just cause they don't want to be pregnant. Sure, I might not want to be pregnant but if I did become pregnant, I don't think I have the right to kill the fetus unless my live was in danger. If there was a way to allow the fetus to live without being inside a womans uterus then that would be great but there isn't any way for it to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:32 pm
WatersMoon110 Tiger of the Fire Again with the "forcing?" Its been said time and again Waters, we don't want to force her to keep a pregnancy she dosn't want. We just don't want a legally supported idea that allows her to kill said pregnancy. I don't see the difference. If you don't want to brush your teeth every day, but I support a law that requires everyone to brush their teeth at least twice a day, I am trying to force people to brush their teeth, and such a law would force you to do something you don't want to do. I might think of such a law as something that is good for everyone, but to you it would feel like you were being forced. You might not think of it as forcing women to keep pregnancies they don't want, but to a woman who doesn't want to continue a pregnancy, but can't legally terminate it, it would sure feel like she was being forced. It's all a matter of perspective. If you feel that my use of the word "force" is incorrect, what term is better? How should I describe "using legal means to keep someone from doing something"? the difference between a teeth-brushing law and an anti-abortion law is quite large. someone choosing not to brush their teeth hurts them and only them. they may have poor oral hygene, but fixing it will not harm any other human life. abortion does and will kill. teethbrushing effects the one who chooses to do it, abortion effects another. that is the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
