|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:10 pm
La Veuve Zin WatersMoon110 Most importantly, however, is that the original author does not mention the location of the unborn human: inside of the woman. It doesn't matter if the unborn human is a separate individual (which it is), because it is a separate individual living off and inside of the woman. Thus, because the woman has the right to deny use of her body to any individual, she has the right to demand its removal. Says who? Not the Constitution... I'm not even saying a woman shouldn't have that right, but consider this: Why is forced organ donation illegal? Because you're permanently damaging someone's body. Pregnancy can do that, but it's not a guarantee. (Why is forced blood donation illegal? I don't think it should be...) The need for a donated organ is a pathological condition, which very few people will experience. Everyone has to be carried to term in someone's uterus. You can donate your organs after you die, thus those who need a new organ don't necessarily have to "leech" off someone's body. Again, everyone needs a uterus to be born, and a healthy one at that. Basically, there's no denying someone a place to gestate without killing them. If I don't donate a kidney, a person in need of a donor will get one elsewhere, or stay on dialysis. (Hearts, you're pretty ********, but you can't donate your heart premortem.) Plus: WatersMoon110 It doesn't matter if the unborn human is a danger to her or not. To take away one's control of one's own body, whatever the justification, is unethical No one gets pregnant without either their consent or being raped, which is illegally taking control of someone's body anyways. Might I remind you that the "Right to Life" is also not in the Constitution (for those of you thinking "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", that's the Declaration of Independence). From my viewpoint, force donation of blood or organs (both of which are illegal) are equally wrong. Because those are the property of the person that they are in (another grammar killing sentence, brought to you by AJ). No one (other than victims of rape) has the sex that causes their pregnancy without their consent. But consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. If they had consented to the pregnancy, they would be keeping it, and not seeking an abortion. Just because everyone develops in a womb, that means that the womb isn't the property of the woman it is a part of?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:07 am
WatersMoon110 divineseraph But... How is a woman's bodily integrity worth more than the entire lifetime of the fetus? The fetus is not enslaving the woman, nor hurting her badly, nor a significant danger to her health, and in most cases is not a danger to her career/future. How is nine months, four or five considering actually noticable pregnancy, worth more than that fetus' entire life? It doesn't matter if the unborn human is a danger to her or not. To take away one's control of one's own body, whatever the justification, is unethical. Even for the best of reasons, it is wrong to take away the woman's right to control her body, even for a short period of time. The unborn human might not be enslaving the woman. But by forcing the woman to remain pregnant, the government would be enslaving (that is, taking control over her body) her, however briefly. As to your main point, why is bodily integrity more important than life? I am not entirely sure how to answer it. The legality of the matter is that it has been ruled that one's right to deny use of their body trumps the right of another to live using one's body against one's will. As for my own personal opinion on the matter... ... Well, I would state that one's body is one's only true possession. It is the only thing that one really has for the entire course of one's life. If I cannot be said to be in control of my own body, then I have nothing, and really I am nothing. I see taking control of another's body, for what ever reason, without their permission as a complete and utter violation. Whatever the justification, overruling someone's control of their very self is unethical and horrible. And, in every circumstance that it is allowed to happen in, I find it such. And how is it that even someone elses life cannot bend this rule? How does bodily integrity, which in any other case I would agree with, as the person in question could simply move away and still be entirely alive, overrule the fetus' liife? Is their body not being violated as well? Was it the fetus' choice to be created? where is that child's choice, where is it's bodily integrity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:26 am
WatersMoon110 I can, however, prove with one post that the original author of these "answers" is completely insane: Pro-Life America The 'ProChoice' Straw Man Let’s set aside our differences and look for common ground. We should look for ways to end the need for abortion. From the day this battle began, the abortion lobby has understood two realities. First, they do not have to convince the public that their position is morally superior to ours, only that it is morally defensible. Second, that goal is much easier to accomplish when it is perceived that abortions are done out of need rather than out of want. Every time we take the “common ground” bait, we help them sell both of those lies to the American people. When we join them to look for ways to reduce the need for abortion, by definition we are agreeing there is sometimes a need for abortion. After all, people don’t go looking for ways to reduce the need for something unless they believe that such a need exists. The truth is, even studies conducted by hardcore abortion advocates prove that almost every abortion performed in America is for non-medical reasons and involves a healthy baby who was not conceived by rape or incest, and a healthy woman whose pregnancy does not threaten either her life or health. In short, abortions are done for want, not need. Whenever we do or say anything that suggests otherwise, we support the abortion lobby’s position. The fact is, for these baby killers to say that we should help them reduce the need for abortion, is like some pimp telling the vice squad that they should help him reduce the need for prostitution. The other problem is, we cannot look for common ground with these people without giving the impression that even we believe their position has some moral validity. It is no different than if the Jewish people would have agreed to look for common ground with the Nazis while the ovens at Auschwitz were burning day and night. To do so would have simply given credibility to the Nazi position. When people are threatening to do evil, discussions with them may be reasonable. But once they have begun doing that evil, there is nothing more to talk about. At that point, the only goal is to stop them. Remember, prior to World War II we had intense discussions with the Japanese trying to avert the war. But at Pearl Harbor, the talking ended. Another thing about “common ground” is that it always requires an acceptance of the fundamental premise of the abortion lobby. In all such discussions, the opening statement is something like, “Everyone has agreed to set aside any discussion about whether abortion should be legal or not and simply look for areas of common ground and for ways to reduce the need for abortions.” If the real goal is common ground, it would be equally legitimate to say, “Everyone has agreed that abortion should be made illegal, so our goal today is to look for ways to reduce the incidence of illegal abortions once that happens.” Of course, that is never the basis upon which we look for this elusive common ground because the abortion lobby would never agree to discuss their position on their opponent’s terms. We seem to be the only ones who fall for that trick. The fact is, pro-lifers need to stop being so easily manipulated. Our job is not to sit around the campfire and sing Kumbayah with people who torture and slaughter helpless babies for money. Our job is to stop them. Really? Does anyone agree with this? Can you take anything this obviously unbalanced person says seriously? Saying that methods to reduce abortion don't matter, because abortion needs to be illegal (no matter what, apparently) sounds pretty damn crazy to me. They also have another post, about contraception (and how, I guess, it somehow doesn't help keep abortion rates down AND is an abortive also) which I really don't feel the need to post here. Now I feel sort of bad, for attacking the arguments of a crazy person... Well I can understand them, but I do not feel that what they are preaching is something liveable. I think the only one to eliminate abortion completely, in a world of sexual activity, is to simply try to reduce it into obscurity by having people not need it. I do, understand, again, what he is saying. He's saying that anyone who supports the killing of unborn children cannot be supported in the least. But if we don't work together, we can only keep on fighting the monster a whole (and I'm just throwing in words that match his thoughts, not my own). If we work together, we can reduce the number of abortions, and the number of women that must procure them. I feel that abortion does not carry the seriousness behind it that other forms of killing does because fetuses, again, cannot be physically harmed in the beginning stages of their life. I see more injustice in abortion then cruelty. But there is cruelty involved sometimes, sadly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:27 am
WatersMoon110 Pro-Life America The 'ProChoice' Straw Man If a baby is not a white, healthy, newborn it stands little chance of being adopted. The National Counsel for Adoption says that while there is indeed a long waiting list for healthy white babies, there are also parents on waiting lists for minority and physically challenged babies. This is confirmed by Christian Homes and Special Kids, a non-profit organization founded to support families with special-needs children. At any given time, they have a database of several hundred families waiting to adopt children with even the most severe physical challenges, including children who are terminal and those who are born addicted to drugs. The truth is, the chances of a newborn not being adopted are minuscule regardless of circumstances. Today, the problem with adoption is not babies, but older children, and since they are already born that problem has nothing to do with abortion. The abortion lobby counters that if newborns are not available, families would be more likely to adopt these older children. In other words, the pro-choice solution is to force people to take the children society wants them to adopt, by brutally slaughtering the children they want to adopt. If the abortion lobby wants us to believe that they are only killing babies no one wants, here is a suggestion that will settle the whole abortion debate once and for all. Let’s create a national computer database of people who want to adopt a baby. Any pregnant woman who doesn’t want her baby would have access to this database. If there is someone in the database who wants to adopt her baby, she could not legally have an abortion. But if no one is willing to take her baby, she could legally have the child killed by abortion. Of course, the abortion industry is never going to take this deal because they know it would immediately bankrupt every one of their death camps. They realize that there is no such thing as an unwanted baby and that every single child they butcher is wanted by someone. Their “every child a wanted child” rhetoric, and this “disease of unwantedness,” are simply scams they conjured up to justify abortion and create a market for their product. Mouse of Water Keep in mind I'm not racist, it's just what it says So, because there are people who are willing to adopt special needs or older children, that makes it okay that most people will only adopt healthy, white (usually male) newborns? I really do like the idea of some sort of National Potential Adoptive Parents database though. I know that many Open Adoption Agencies have such a database, but I like the idea of making it country-wide. This would probably even have some effect on lowering the abortion rate, like the original author wants. And Open Adoptions happen a lot faster, for the pregnant woman (she meets the couple while pregnant and hands over the baby after birth - and they pay all her bills). But to say that an abortion cannot happen just because someone might be willing to adopt the born child is wrong, from my view point. At least until fetal transplant surgery is viable. Since the pregnant woman would still have to carry the unborn human, allowing its violation of her body (from her view point) until it is born. When the couple can adopt the unborn human immediately, I can more understand pushing (fetal) adoption instead of abortion. Waters, Is a child unwanted one that does not deserve to live?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 6:17 am
kp is dcvi Well I can understand them, but I do not feel that what they are preaching is something liveable. I think the only one to eliminate abortion completely, in a world of sexual activity, is to simply try to reduce it into obscurity by having people not need it. I do, understand, again, what he is saying. He's saying that anyone who supports the killing of unborn children cannot be supported in the least. But if we don't work together, we can only keep on fighting the monster a whole (and I'm just throwing in words that match his thoughts, not my own). If we work together, we can reduce the number of abortions, and the number of women that must procure them. I feel that abortion does not carry the seriousness behind it that other forms of killing does because fetuses, again, cannot be physically harmed in the beginning stages of their life. I see more injustice in abortion then cruelty. But there is cruelty involved sometimes, sadly. I see what you are saying, but I still think this person is pretty crazy. Perhaps it is just that I start out not trusting this person, as I am not Pro-Life, and then they more or less outright attack my main point (that it matters more that we work towards abortion being unnecessary for non-life-saving reasons than that it is made illegal). Maybe if I was seeing it from a different viewpoint, this would not seem like the rantings of an unbalanced person?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 6:24 am
kp is dcvi Waters, Is a child unwanted one that does not deserve to live? As an unwanted child myself, I would of course say that all born children have the same "right" to be here. However, I cannot say that anyone deserves to live, or not to live. Life isn't something that is supposed to happen, it just does (or does not). I would also state that unwanted children also should have the chance to get a good home. I feel it is unfair that older children, non-white children, and special needs children don't get adopted as often as white, healthy (male) newborns do. I think that maybe it shouldn't be allowed to request what sort of child (race, age, gender, health) one is looking to adopt, just so that all of the children growing up in the adoption system have more of a chance of getting a home (I know this wouldn't work, but I really wish that something could be done about this). Ok - I have to ask - what is "dcvi"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 6:39 am
divineseraph WatersMoon110 divineseraph But... How is a woman's bodily integrity worth more than the entire lifetime of the fetus? The fetus is not enslaving the woman, nor hurting her badly, nor a significant danger to her health, and in most cases is not a danger to her career/future. How is nine months, four or five considering actually noticable pregnancy, worth more than that fetus' entire life? It doesn't matter if the unborn human is a danger to her or not. To take away one's control of one's own body, whatever the justification, is unethical. Even for the best of reasons, it is wrong to take away the woman's right to control her body, even for a short period of time. The unborn human might not be enslaving the woman. But by forcing the woman to remain pregnant, the government would be enslaving (that is, taking control over her body) her, however briefly. As to your main point, why is bodily integrity more important than life? I am not entirely sure how to answer it. The legality of the matter is that it has been ruled that one's right to deny use of their body trumps the right of another to live using one's body against one's will. As for my own personal opinion on the matter... ... Well, I would state that one's body is one's only true possession. It is the only thing that one really has for the entire course of one's life. If I cannot be said to be in control of my own body, then I have nothing, and really I am nothing. I see taking control of another's body, for what ever reason, without their permission as a complete and utter violation. Whatever the justification, overruling someone's control of their very self is unethical and horrible. And, in every circumstance that it is allowed to happen in, I find it such. And how is it that even someone elses life cannot bend this rule? How does bodily integrity, which in any other case I would agree with, as the person in question could simply move away and still be entirely alive, overrule the fetus' liife? Is their body not being violated as well? Was it the fetus' choice to be created? where is that child's choice, where is it's bodily integrity? Where is the unborn human's choice in being born? The unborn human is completely incapable of making, or having any choice. Unless the unborn human has a choice in being born, I don't see how you can ask where its choice in abortion is. I feel it's like asking where is the tree's choice in being cut down. It just doesn't apply. Your first question, though, "How can the life of the unborn human not be an exception to bodily integrity?". I just don't see how it could be. Bodily integrity only really comes into play once it has been violated (by attempted rape or assault, for example), giving one the right to defend their own body from other humans... I guess the now classic example is the famous violinist hypothesis. The idea being, if you woke up in a hospital, and found that you were physically connected, without your consent, to a famous violinist who needed to stay connected to you in order to live, would you have the right to demand they be removed from you? I don't know, perhaps my own biases get in the way, but I just can't see any other valid response than "yes". Like in other cases, one's right to control one's own body must be more important than another's right to live using one's body. Your third, sort of implied, question is: "How can an unborn human be punished for violating a woman's bodily integrity if it didn't purposely do so?" I really feel that this doesn't matter. In order to survive, an unborn human must live inside and off of a woman. In order to be in a woman, the unborn human must have her permission to use her body. Thus, without her permission, the unborn human is violating her body, and must be subject to her control of her body. I don't know. It's really hard for me to see any other view for this, because control of one's own body is so important for me. I really cannot see why this control should ever be taken away...Perhaps someone could try to explain this to me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 9:57 am
WatersMoon110 divineseraph WatersMoon110 divineseraph But... How is a woman's bodily integrity worth more than the entire lifetime of the fetus? The fetus is not enslaving the woman, nor hurting her badly, nor a significant danger to her health, and in most cases is not a danger to her career/future. How is nine months, four or five considering actually noticable pregnancy, worth more than that fetus' entire life? It doesn't matter if the unborn human is a danger to her or not. To take away one's control of one's own body, whatever the justification, is unethical. Even for the best of reasons, it is wrong to take away the woman's right to control her body, even for a short period of time. The unborn human might not be enslaving the woman. But by forcing the woman to remain pregnant, the government would be enslaving (that is, taking control over her body) her, however briefly. As to your main point, why is bodily integrity more important than life? I am not entirely sure how to answer it. The legality of the matter is that it has been ruled that one's right to deny use of their body trumps the right of another to live using one's body against one's will. As for my own personal opinion on the matter... ... Well, I would state that one's body is one's only true possession. It is the only thing that one really has for the entire course of one's life. If I cannot be said to be in control of my own body, then I have nothing, and really I am nothing. I see taking control of another's body, for what ever reason, without their permission as a complete and utter violation. Whatever the justification, overruling someone's control of their very self is unethical and horrible. And, in every circumstance that it is allowed to happen in, I find it such. And how is it that even someone elses life cannot bend this rule? How does bodily integrity, which in any other case I would agree with, as the person in question could simply move away and still be entirely alive, overrule the fetus' liife? Is their body not being violated as well? Was it the fetus' choice to be created? where is that child's choice, where is it's bodily integrity? Where is the unborn human's choice in being born? The unborn human is completely incapable of making, or having any choice. Unless the unborn human has a choice in being born, I don't see how you can ask where its choice in abortion is. I feel it's like asking where is the tree's choice in being cut down. It just doesn't apply. Your first question, though, "How can the life of the unborn human not be an exception to bodily integrity?". I just don't see how it could be. Bodily integrity only really comes into play once it has been violated (by attempted rape or assault, for example), giving one the right to defend their own body from other humans... I guess the now classic example is the famous violinist hypothesis. The idea being, if you woke up in a hospital, and found that you were physically connected, without your consent, to a famous violinist who needed to stay connected to you in order to live, would you have the right to demand they be removed from you? I don't know, perhaps my own biases get in the way, but I just can't see any other valid response than "yes". Like in other cases, one's right to control one's own body must be more important than another's right to live using one's body. Your third, sort of implied, question is: "How can an unborn human be punished for violating a woman's bodily integrity if it didn't purposely do so?" I really feel that this doesn't matter. In order to survive, an unborn human must live inside and off of a woman. In order to be in a woman, the unborn human must have her permission to use her body. Thus, without her permission, the unborn human is violating her body, and must be subject to her control of her body. I don't know. It's really hard for me to see any other view for this, because control of one's own body is so important for me. I really cannot see why this control should ever be taken away...Perhaps someone could try to explain this to me? Maybe because to us being pregnant DOES NOT TAKE A WOMAN'S CONTROL OF HER BODY AWAY FROM HER??? Honestly, where do you get such an insane idea? Does she have to make some adjustments? Sure, temporarily. So what? Is having to change to slipon shoes instead of laceup in the later months such a horrible thing? And unless you're a professional athlete, is it so horrible not to be able to go running every day? You have to change your diet for a while? Does that mean that you're going to starve to death, or does it just mean there are certain foods you want to avoid for a bit? Does being pregnant mean a woman cannot go on with normal life? Does it keep her from shopping, or going out to eat, or the movies, the museum, the ballet, the theater? Does it stop her from travelling, or visiting friends and family? Does it, in short, stop her from living a normal everyday life? How can anyone, in good conscience and in a sane manner, equate pregnancy with rape or assault?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 10:04 am
WatersMoon110 I don't know. It's really hard for me to see any other view for this, because control of one's own body is so important for me. I really cannot see why this control should ever be taken away...Perhaps someone could try to explain this to me?
4 years ago, two huge, green pecan trees were chopped down in our backyard... only because our perfectionist neighbor didn't like the sap that fell on his side, and that's his main reason for having them chopped down. gonk Every time someone says that they had an abortion, I feel like a healthy, growing tree was uprooted and thrown in the trash. This "tree" was on their property, but it still feels bad, because I know that I could have been 'uprooted' at some point. I also feel like I have no right to protest since I was on someone else's property at the time... even though I feel lucky to be alive, and even though I don't feel it was right that that could have happened to me.
I think I'm biased because I was fortunate to have a very nice childhood, and I was very planned, but I don't think anyone should be cheated out of life. I love having control over my body, but to me, it's more unfair to take 80+ years away from someone who will be aware during those 80 years, than to take 9 months from someone who's aware of it. sweatdrop I hope I didn't confuse you, but it depends on someone's opinion. Many people feel special that they were chosen, and that's fine, but I feel kind of freaked out that I could have not been chosen. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 10:54 am
WatersMoon110 First off, the Bible condones slavery in multiple places. So slave owners and other racist morons didn't need to point to the lack of Jesus speaking out against slavery - they just mentioned all of the Biblical quotes stating that slavery was perfectly okay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 1:07 pm
Lorysa WatersMoon110 First off, the Bible condones slavery in multiple places. So slave owners and other racist morons didn't need to point to the lack of Jesus speaking out against slavery - they just mentioned all of the Biblical quotes stating that slavery was perfectly okay... Quote: When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. (Exod. 21:20-21)< Quote: A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24) Quote: Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46) Quote: Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1Tim. 6:1-5) Quote: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6) Quote: Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10) Quote: Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29) And for you fans of the Catholic religion out there, here are some saints on the tasty goodness of slave ownin'! surprised Quote: The slave should be resigned to his lot, in obeying his master he is obeying God... (Saint John Chrysostom) Quote: ...slavery is now penal in character and planned by that law which commands the preservation of the natural order and forbids disturbance. (Saint Augustine)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:06 pm
O_o That's a lot. I'll look up a couple tomorrow after school... (last day! :3) I did hear that slaves, when set free, had to be given a good amount of their former master's things, enough so they wouldn't be poor, but I'll check later. whee The rod thing's disturbing, so I'll focus on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:05 pm
Winged Isis Maybe because to us being pregnant DOES NOT TAKE A WOMAN'S CONTROL OF HER BODY AWAY FROM HER??? Honestly, where do you get such an insane idea? Does she have to make some adjustments? Sure, temporarily. So what? Is having to change to slipon shoes instead of laceup in the later months such a horrible thing? And unless you're a professional athlete, is it so horrible not to be able to go running every day? You have to change your diet for a while? Does that mean that you're going to starve to death, or does it just mean there are certain foods you want to avoid for a bit? Does being pregnant mean a woman cannot go on with normal life? Does it keep her from shopping, or going out to eat, or the movies, the museum, the ballet, the theater? Does it stop her from travelling, or visiting friends and family? Does it, in short, stop her from living a normal everyday life? How can anyone, in good conscience and in a sane manner, equate pregnancy with rape or assault? I did not equate pregnancy with rape or assault. Rape and assault are very, very different from pregnancy. However, all three are alike only in that they all involve a violation of bodily integrity (as does forced organ donation - which is also very different from rape and assault). Pregnancy itself doesn't keep a woman from having control over her body. For women who choose to become or remain pregnant, it is not even a violation of bodily integrity as she gives the unborn human permission to be living inside and off of her body. But forcing a woman to remain pregnant (which is what outlawing abortion does) is taking away her right to control her body, that is her right to deny use of her body to the unborn human. The difference is, in case anyone is confused, that a pregnant woman must (ethically) have the choice to deny use of her body to the unborn human. Taking that choice away from her is unethically removing her right to control her own body (albeit temporarily).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:10 pm
Lorysa WatersMoon110 I don't know. It's really hard for me to see any other view for this, because control of one's own body is so important for me. I really cannot see why this control should ever be taken away...Perhaps someone could try to explain this to me?
4 years ago, two huge, green pecan trees were chopped down in our backyard... only because our perfectionist neighbor didn't like the sap that fell on his side, and that's his main reason for having them chopped down. gonk Every time someone says that they had an abortion, I feel like a healthy, growing tree was uprooted and thrown in the trash. This "tree" was on their property, but it still feels bad, because I know that I could have been 'uprooted' at some point. I also feel like I have no right to protest since I was on someone else's property at the time... even though I feel lucky to be alive, and even though I don't feel it was right that that could have happened to me.
I think I'm biased because I was fortunate to have a very nice childhood, and I was very planned, but I don't think anyone should be cheated out of life. I love having control over my body, but to me, it's more unfair to take 80+ years away from someone who will be aware during those 80 years, than to take 9 months from someone who's aware of it. sweatdrop I hope I didn't confuse you, but it depends on someone's opinion. Many people feel special that they were chosen, and that's fine, but I feel kind of freaked out that I could have not been chosen. sweatdrop But no one is guaranteed to live to be 80 or more. No one is even guaranteed to be born, as about three out of four fertilized ovum don't implant or are naturally miscarried before the woman even knows she was pregnant. I don't get it. Maybe because I had such a bad childhood, and really don't feel that being a "kept" pregnancy and child was such a blessing. I think maybe I really can't see things from your perspective, despite my efforts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 3:10 pm
WatersMoon110 divineseraph But... How is a woman's bodily integrity worth more than the entire lifetime of the fetus? The fetus is not enslaving the woman, nor hurting her badly, nor a significant danger to her health, and in most cases is not a danger to her career/future. How is nine months, four or five considering actually noticable pregnancy, worth more than that fetus' entire life? It doesn't matter if the unborn human is a danger to her or not. To take away one's control of one's own body, whatever the justification, is unethical. Even for the best of reasons, it is wrong to take away the woman's right to control her body, even for a short period of time. The unborn human might not be enslaving the woman. But by forcing the woman to remain pregnant, the government would be enslaving (that is, taking control over her body) her, however briefly. As to your main point, why is bodily integrity more important than life? I am not entirely sure how to answer it. The legality of the matter is that it has been ruled that one's right to deny use of their body trumps the right of another to live using one's body against one's will. As for my own personal opinion on the matter... ... Well, I would state that one's body is one's only true possession. It is the only thing that one really has for the entire course of one's life. If I cannot be said to be in control of my own body, then I have nothing, and really I am nothing. I see taking control of another's body, for what ever reason, without their permission as a complete and utter violation. Whatever the justification, overruling someone's control of their very self is unethical and horrible. And, in every circumstance that it is allowed to happen in, I find it such. The problem I find with that is, the baby is not her or is it part of her body , it's a different human/person. When it comes to bodily integrity, where is the fetus/babies intergrity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
