|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:47 pm
divineseraph am i claiming to be a christian clinic bomber? no. are you claiming to fight for the people, yet for the deaths of the very same you believe to be people? i'm not asking you to give up freedom. i'm not asking to chain yourself down, nor anyone down. that is paranoia. i ask for the protection of these people who cannot protect themselves. they are created (in most cases) through known, consensual means. they are not invaders or slave-drivers, they are, or so you claim, people who are disadvantaged and have no choice. their position is forced upon them by either irresponsibility or an accident. more realistically, THEY are they slaves, and abortion is their lynching. I was merely trying to illustrate my distaste for your twisting of my words. I told you that inherent rights of the people are uncompromisable concepts to me and that inherently, they are more important than life itself. Why do people die for a belief? Because it's more important than life to them. I know you're not, as I'm male. 3nodding And I rank it a higher duty to protect the rights of the people. If I was told that in order to protect all white people, I had to put black people under house arrest and jail them for failing to abide by a curfew, should I do it? I don't believe so. lyme; I didn't like what he was insinuating so I was merely illustrating that he was taking what I was saying out of context. Because it's my opinion? It's natural human assumption and desire to want ones opinion to be law. I obviously value freedom more than life, for you it is otherwise (if you regard BD as a right); hence why I would prioritize and work to make sure that what I feel is right and constitutional is law and you would do so as well. When have I ever begrudged anyone that right? In fact, I remember very clearly tha tI've stood up for KP of all people on this issue and argued with other choicer's about it. Lifer's have just as much right to try and press their belief into law as Choicers. You do realize that something like 98% of abortions are VA, right? The removal itself is what kills it. They don't reach in with forceps and smoosh it; they merely suck it out whole. As for later abortions, I don't know if anyone actually HAS elective late term abortions or D&E as it be known on the street. Yo. ninja But, I guess it would be because it's less invasive.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:56 pm
Oh I know you have. I believe I've pointed that out a few times to people. I'm just wondering why I should believe that the right to bodily integrity trumps the right to life.
Also, it doesn't always get sucked out whole, it can get torn up in the process of VA just from the suction. The only way to be sure you're removing it whole is to do something that's more invasive.
So unless women have the right to a procedure that's less invasive the whole way through, what's the point? Why bar that procedure at a later date just because with good medical attention, the fetus has a chance of living? If it's about a woman's body, then that shouldn't be a factor because she's being invaded, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:35 am
lymelady Oh I know you have. I believe I've pointed that out a few times to people. I'm just wondering why I should believe that the right to bodily integrity trumps the right to life. Also, it doesn't always get sucked out whole, it can get torn up in the process of VA just from the suction. The only way to be sure you're removing it whole is to do something that's more invasive. So unless women have the right to a procedure that's less invasive the whole way through, what's the point? Why bar that procedure at a later date just because with good medical attention, the fetus has a chance of living? If it's about a woman's body, then that shouldn't be a factor because she's being invaded, right? Meh, I don't know why you should, I know why I do. True, but the procedure's aim really isn't to destroy the fetus so much as to remove it. Most of the time it is removed intact; especially when chemical abortions are used. I don't know how I feel about late term abortions so I really can't answer that question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:11 am
lymelady There are violent people on both sides, so where the clinic bomber comment is coming from, I don't know. I sort of wondered that myself. Personally, I thought it might be a not so nice response to a not so nice post. lymelady But you assume that one basic right trumps another basic right too, only with you, it's in reverse. So why is your opinion the one that should be made law? For one thing, bodily integrity has already been shown through legal precedent to be more important than another's right to life. The right to life is a right of non-interference. It requires that I do nothing that actively ends your life, not that I do things to keep you alive. Your right to live ends at the point where it would require my body to continue doing so. I fail to see why an unborn human should get the right to use a woman's body without her permission, when no born human has this right. lymelady I still don't understand why if it's just about removing the fetus, they do abortion at all. Why not just do a c-section at all stages of the pregnancy where the fetus is big enough to be seen and removed, take it out, and let it die naturally? Sure, it'd die anyway, but in one instance, active killing goes on, and in the other, it's just plain removing something. If a woman doesn't have the right to have something killed and then removed, then why should it be legal earlier on? Because it's less invasive? But abortion is still less invasive in the third trimester, and I'm told it's also safer, than a C-section or birth. So, because you don't like the idea of actively killing something that would die anyway if removed at that stage of pregnancy, let's put any woman who doesn't want to remain pregnant through a risky procedure to satisfy your whims? If the unborn human could be removed through c-section and allowed to live at earlier stages of the pregnancy, I would see your point. I do not believe that anyone has the right to end another's life in order to protect their bodily integrity if there is another alternative. But there isn't before viability -- and to do a more risky procedure because you would like an unborn human to die a more natural death seems rather unfair and unlikely. Unfair because the woman involved would be more at risk for long-term injury from it (isn't one of the rather large Pro-Life objections to abortion that it causes major issues to the woman -- like breast cancer or infertility?). And unlikely because I don't see any clinic trying to force women to shell out thousands of dollars so that they can allow your conscious to rest a little easier. As soon as there is a way to save the life of the unborn human before 5/6 months, I will agree with you that it should be used instead of abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:15 am
lymelady So unless women have the right to a procedure that's less invasive the whole way through, what's the point? Why bar that procedure at a later date just because with good medical attention, the fetus has a chance of living? If it's about a woman's body, then that shouldn't be a factor because she's being invaded, right? Because bodily integrity, in my opinion, only gives one the right to deny use of one's body. In earlier terms, any removal of the unborn human will result in its death, no matter if it is removed whole or not. In later terms, it can be removed in ways that allow it to continue living, and so many (though not all) Pro-Choicers feel that it should be given that chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:16 am
lymelady I'm just wondering why I should believe that the right to bodily integrity trumps the right to life. Which is why you're pro-life. ThePeerOrlando2 Meh, I don't know why you should, I know why I do. Which is why you're pro-choice. Difference of opinion. Simple as that. 3nodding *suppresses horrible, horrible urge to sing "Kumbaya"*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:24 am
lymelady I'm just wondering why I should believe that the right to bodily integrity trumps the right to life. I wasn't aware that you were supposed to. I was merely talking about what I believe, as was Peer (I think). It is well within your rights to believe differently. I just happen to feel that US legal precedent has shown that one's right to control their own body is more important that another's right to live using one's body. And I believe that this precedent should be applied in the case of abortion, as the unborn human is using the woman's body to live -- and so, in my opinion, should need her permission to stay there. I, at least, have no problem with anyone being Pro-Life. It just doesn't make sense to me, personally, as I believe that bodily integrity trumps the right of another to continue living. I wouldn't want to force this idea on anyone else, though I do wish to enforce the legal precedent. I also have no problem with Pro-Lifers (or for that matter, Pro-Choicers) who do want to change other's opinions. I think that trying to convince pregnant women who are thinking of getting abortions to choose otherwise is fine, assuming that one doesn't harm them in any way (so telling them that abortion is bad is fine -- pointing a gun at them and saying they have to go somewhere else and not get an abortion is not). I know some people get all upset about protesters, but as long as they act within the confines of the law, I have no issue with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:25 am
La Veuve Zin lymelady I'm just wondering why I should believe that the right to bodily integrity trumps the right to life. Which is why you're pro-life. ThePeerOrlando2 Meh, I don't know why you should, I know why I do. Which is why you're pro-choice. Difference of opinion. Simple as that. 3nodding *suppresses horrible, horrible urge to sing "Kumbaya"*Too late! It's sing in my head! AHHhhhhhh!!!!!! No!!!!!!!! Ok, I'm done. *wink*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:49 am
  I wouldn't prefer a natural death; someone's going to die. I'd honestly rather it be as quickly done as possible.
It's just that you say that women don't have the right to have someone killed and then removed, yet that's exactly what happens in many earlier abortions; VA doesn't take the bodies whole all the time, or they wouldn't have to scrape around to make sure there are no body parts left (and when they did, they wouldn't find body parts). The difference to you is the survival rate, then? It's possible for a baby to survive at 21 weeks, which is still in the second trimester, when removed from the womb. Should that date be pushed back? Does the length of time that a baby lives past being removed come into play? If the doctor thinks it'll live to be 10, is that less worth it than one who the doctor thinks will live to be over 50? How about the health prospects of that child, or the cost to keep that child alive?
And if I shouldn't believe there's a good reason why I should value bodily integrity over life, then what's the point of talking about it? What's the point of debating? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:30 am
lymelady I wouldn't prefer a natural death; someone's going to die. I'd honestly rather it be as quickly done as possible. As would I...strange how that works... lymelady It's just that you say that women don't have the right to have someone killed and then removed, yet that's exactly what happens in many earlier abortions; VA doesn't take the bodies whole all the time, or they wouldn't have to scrape around to make sure there are no body parts left (and when they did, they wouldn't find body parts). The difference to you is the survival rate, then? It's possible for a baby to survive at 21 weeks, which is still in the second trimester, when removed from the womb. Should that date be pushed back? Does the length of time that a baby lives past being removed come into play? If the doctor thinks it'll live to be 10, is that less worth it than one who the doctor thinks will live to be over 50? How about the health prospects of that child, or the cost to keep that child alive? Survive at 21 weeks for more than a few hours? If it can live, can actually be saved, then yes -- I believe that abortion should not be allowed. When there is an option that allows women to remove the unborn human without killing it, an actual option that doesn't result in its death, then I will advocate for that. lymelady And if I shouldn't believe there's a good reason why I should value bodily integrity over life, then what's the point of talking about it? What's the point of debating? I am firm in most of my beliefs at this point in my life. I assume that most of the people that I talk with in here are as well, especially the Pro-Lifers. I debate because I enjoy debating. I do not believe that I will change anyone's mind on a subject, but I do like seeing new viewpoints. Do you really believe that you are going to "convert" people when you debate? eek No wonder you don't go into the Abortion Debate...just about no one in there ever changes their mind, let alone the Pro-Choicers. *wink*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:12 pm
Wait, when did I say any of that? To better inform yourself and attempt to persuade others to your point of view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:29 pm
ThePeerOrlando2 Wait, when did I say any of that? I believe she was talking to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:31 pm
WatersMoon110 ThePeerOrlando2 Wait, when did I say any of that? I believe she was talking to me. OIC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:42 pm
I don't attempt to convert anyone. I'm open to changing. If someone can convince me that the right to bodily integrity overrides the right to life, then yes, I'll change my tune. No one's been able to yet. I don't want to be stuck in a mindset just because it's what I'm used to believing. If anyone can offer something I haven't thought of before, there's something new to think about.
I avoid the abortion debate because when I have five people on me at once and I need to sort through five pages because I leave my computer for a few hours, and people tell me things like oranges are vegetables, I get frustrated. I haven't really gone in much since Nethilia's thread. I was arguing with Mipsy primarily, though I did have Nethilia calling me a racist and someone else telling me I think women who have sex are sluts. I was also being told that the zygote isn't usually implanted until a month after conception. Also, I can't keep up. I'm not exactly the brightest crayon in the box, and I add nothing to a conversation where people aren't willing to acknowledge that my opinion is valid because I'm not assertive at all. Dealing with one or two people is hard enough, five people is insane for me. The thread I.Am and Lymelady also threw me off a bit. It was funny and I was mentioned only once, but still, it made me think that it wasn't worth talking to these people.
Debating for the sake of debating does nothing. It's a waste of time. I debate so that I learn. I don't want to change other people as much as I want to be changed. I want to expand my sphere of knowledge and I want to see if there's anything out there I haven't heard yet. If I wanted to try and "convert" you and Peer, I'd have asked McPhee to explain why the right to life trumps the right to bodily integrity, instead of the other way around, or I'd have tried to explain it.
And, http://www.nbc6.net/health/11056409/detail.html
So it's more like 22 weeks, but it's still in the second trimester.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:02 pm
i wonder...how far do rights actually go?
are you for segregation? say a racist shopowner puts out a sign, "whites only"- his store, he decides what goes on inside of it. his property, his property's integrity. regardless of your morals on black people, why should your morals trump his right to decide what goes on in his store?
keep in mind, despite what neth may tell you, i am not racist. i DO however, play devils advocater an make reference to racism since abortion is rather similar- it is the singling of a group of people who can legally be treated less than others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
