|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:41 am
Broorel Scribblemouse, you need to take a good look at what's going on, look at what's going on with the disabled and elderly and then see if snide comments are in order. You are being increadibly rude and refusing to look at anything that goes against your own world view. A prominant gaian pro-choicer said and I quote "this is one area where the slippery slope really seems appropriate" in refernece to this "suggestion". With his permission I'd publish his name. If it goes no further than this(which it already has in cases of euthenizing disabled children) we are still stripping personhood from established people. That in itself is horrific. Show me what's apparently going on with the disabled and elderly. I'm disabled, and nothing bad seems to be happening to me. I don't know where I would start looking up what's happening with them, because it's such a huge topic. What would I be looking for? I just don't think slippery slope arguments are logical and I don't consider them important in debate. There's nothing firm to say that if this came into effect, what you described would happen. I just don't think it's fair to immediately say that all this is horrific. I've been trying to think 'Maybe there are some people who would be upset by this, in an already troubling point in their life. Is personhood for a (possibly) dead baby more important than sparing someone's feelings?' I don't see a birth certificate as important in telling whether someone was or was not a person. It's just a record. If taking the need for a piece of paper out of the routine spares the feelings of some people, why not? The way I see it, we don't know how these people are feeling. We haven't been in the position of having an abortion, seeing something born, watching it die, and then being told 'You have to fill this and this in within the next few days.' I don't think sparing their feelings should be dismissed as unimportant.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:12 am
lymelady The thing that puzzles me is that if you're pro-life, you're against abortion on-demand, right? There must be some reason for it. Whether you see that fetus as a person or you think abortion is bad for women, you think it shouldn't happen, especially (or at least) at 22 weeks, when there's a small chance of survival outside the womb. If you see a fetus as a person, why aren't you upset that its status of personhood is taken away? If you think abortion hurts women, why aren't you upset that they'd rather put effort into this than into helping women afford to keep their children when they want them but feel the need to abort due to financial reasons? Why doesn't this article upset you in some way, because it obviously doesn't since you're telling other people that they shouldn't be upset that people are having their personhood stripped from them? There are cases where abortion is allowed at 22 weeks and beyond because of health risks, at least in the UK. I was wanting to take these into account. I see the foetus as a person but I don't think it needs a birth certificate. Like I've said, it's just a piece of paper. I know birth certificates are necessary and all, but not for personhood. I don't see taking away a birth certificate from routine as taking away personhood. I see it as taking away the previously mandatory piece of paper, and taking it away to spare feelings. I may not agree with these women's feelings, but I don't think they deserve to go through something that will cause them more heartache, if it can possibly be avoided. When you say that abortion hurts women, what do you mean? Physically or emotionally, or something else? I suppose there are a few reasons I'm not upset. This article is only about what the Royal College might say. They might not say it at all. Even if they do say it, it will be a recommendation, and though this place is probably held in high regard, etc. etc. it doesn't mean that this will immediately come into effect for everyone, and become mandatory. It's all too uncertain for me to be upset about. I don't see the point in getting upset . . . yet. How would the RCOG go about helping women who abort for financial reasons? Who is 'they'? If the government had to help, what would happen? Would these women just end up on some sort of benefit? How much does a child cost to raise? Does the government have that much money to pass around? Women aren't going to want to have to rely on hand-outs fom the government to raise their children. This is stretching it a bit, I know, but if such a benefit existed, someone would try and mooch off it. People already mooch off of Disability Living Allowance, so I don't think these kinds of people are going to consider 'Baby Allowance' to be going too far. It opens up a whole can of worms, really. It's too much to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:45 am
Scribblemouse It opens up a whole can of worms, really. It's too much to think about. Which is what the choicers are counting on. The more people get confused and ignore the simple logic behind this, the more likely they will not get involved. It's a simple tactic really, state your argument, then make every other option appear far too confusing to consider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:36 pm
SM-
It's not just a "piece of paper" it's a legally binding document that gives human rights to memebers of our species. This is what defines our humanity in legal terms throughout the developed world.
If you need to look at an instance of the disabled being dehumanized, you need look no further than the Terri Shiavo case. She was legally allowed to be starved to death simply because a judge had decided that she wasn't really "alive" in any meaningful sense.
Look at the currant RCOG issue regarding euthenization of disabled children.
Your point that "it's just what they expect them to suggest, not a law sheesh" is very misguided. The point is to stop these things before they can enter into a public realm of propaganda and, ultimately, law.
To wait until the issue sat before congress would be beyond foolish.
Perhaps you are not well versed in the crux of the abortion debate. Denying fetal personhood enables abortion to continue. It is the same logic that enabled slavery. This "slip of paper" means a whole lot. We are now defining life in something other than biological terms in order to pacify a specific interest. Regardless of the interest, that is a frightening scenerio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:13 am
Broorel SM- It's not just a "piece of paper" it's a legally binding document that gives human rights to memebers of our species. This is what defines our humanity in legal terms throughout the developed world. If you need to look at an instance of the disabled being dehumanized, you need look no further than the Terri Shiavo case. She was legally allowed to be starved to death simply because a judge had decided that she wasn't really "alive" in any meaningful sense. Look at the currant RCOG issue regarding euthenization of disabled children. Your point that "it's just what they expect them to suggest, not a law sheesh" is very misguided. The point is to stop these things before they can enter into a public realm of propaganda and, ultimately, law. To wait until the issue sat before congress would be beyond foolish. Perhaps you are not well versed in the crux of the abortion debate. Denying fetal personhood enables abortion to continue. It is the same logic that enabled slavery. This "slip of paper" means a whole lot. We are now defining life in something other than biological terms in order to pacify a specific interest. Regardless of the interest, that is a frightening scenerio. If, for some reason, someone didn't have a birth certificate in this world, they would still be considered a person. They would probably be suspect since they couldn't prove who they were, but still - the law does not treat someone as anything other than human just because they can't rpoduce a birth certificate. A birth certificate defines who we are - our name, date of birth, etc. - not what we are. Abortion will happen whether or not the foetus is defined as a person, or not. It's just how it is. Defining the foetus as a person is not going to stop all abortion. It could make abortion illegal, but as I said somewhere before, if it were made illegal, more lives would be lost. I wouldn't think of Terry Schiavo as being disabled - I would think of her as ill. She was in a vegetative state. They came to their decision to 'let her starve' because the court was convinced that Terry would not have wanted to carry on living in such a way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 4:13 am
MiNdCaNdY Scribblemouse It opens up a whole can of worms, really. It's too much to think about. Which is what the choicers are counting on. The more people get confused and ignore the simple logic behind this, the more likely they will not get involved. It's a simple tactic really, state your argument, then make every other option appear far too confusing to consider. It wasn't the pro-choice who suggested it, as I recall. Do you have any better ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 6:47 am
SM you have absoutely no grasp on what the abortion debate entails.
Personhood matters. The ONLY reason women are able to kill their infants halfway out of their birth canal, but not fully is because our society grants personhood when a human leaves the womb completely.
The birth certificate is a hell of a lot more than a piece of paper. I don't know how you keep missing this, but I'll say it again.
In Flordia, a child was born *alive* after an abortion. The clinic workers then murdered the child and put her on a rooftop to hide from the police.
They are being charged with murder.
Had there been a law saying "anyone born alive at 22 weeks does not receive acknowledgement of life" they would be off scott free and that childs inalienable right to life would be forsaken.
This isn't about hypothetical situations, this is already being played out in the legal realm.
As far Terri, she was most certainly disabled. She was not comatose, but she was severly mentally disabled. She did NOT want to die, her "husband" had tried several times to harm her, and she had told numerous people that should something happen to her, Michael should be considered a person of interest.
Her husband, Michael, was a paramedic, yet did not even *attemt* to recusitate her. We have now found that she was NOT anorexic and her origianal collapse was most likely caused by strangulation.
So, her "husband" used America's bias against the severly disabled in order to finish what he started. And we went right along with it.
You have made it very clear that you are more than willing to subjegate human life when it doesn't fit into your box.
As far as "abortion will only kill more if illegal".
That's like saying "well, murder onlly kills more if it's illegal, we should set up state funded murders"
No, if illegal, the vast majority of women facing unwanted pregnancies would suck it up and carry to term. Those who do not fall in the same catagory as people who use illegal drugs. They are knowingly partaking in a potentially risky, unregulated, procedure in order to break the law.
Countless children would be saved, and the number of maternal mortality would go up only marginally. All the sympathy I have for abortive women comes in reaction to societal pressure, if those pressures were allieviated, and support systems were in place, I would have little pity for someone who was so desperate to kill he child that they took illegal steps to make sure it happened.
I'm not going to make theft legal just because some deseperate people die while stealing a stereo, and I'm not going to settle for abortion being legal just because desperate people want to kill their children.
Oh and one more thing, I know we keep pointing this out to you, but you don't seem to get it:
Yes, it was someone pro-choice who would suggest such legislation. They're sole reasoning is to protect women who abort late term fetuses. Only pro-choicers support such act and such women's right to even have said act performed.
Thus, the type of person who would support this meassure is pro-choice and thus a "choicer".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:39 am
Broorel SM you have absoutely no grasp on what the abortion debate entails. Personhood matters. The ONLY reason women are able to kill their infants halfway out of their birth canal, but not fully is because our society grants personhood when a human leaves the womb completely. The birth certificate is a hell of a lot more than a piece of paper. I don't know how you keep missing this, but I'll say it again. In Flordia, a child was born *alive* after an abortion. The clinic workers then murdered the child and put her on a rooftop to hide from the police. They are being charged with murder. Had there been a law saying "anyone born alive at 22 weeks does not receive acknowledgement of life" they would be off scott free and that childs inalienable right to life would be forsaken. This isn't about hypothetical situations, this is already being played out in the legal realm. This baby that was murdered - did it have a birth certificate by that point? Or are they pursuing the case even though the baby has no birth certificate? Broorel As far Terri, she was most certainly disabled. She was not comatose, but she was severly mentally disabled. She did NOT want to die, her "husband" had tried several times to harm her, and she had told numerous people that should something happen to her, Michael should be considered a person of interest. Her husband, Michael, was a paramedic, yet did not even *attemt* to recusitate her. We have now found that she was NOT anorexic and her origianal collapse was most likely caused by strangulation. So, her "husband" used America's bias against the severly disabled in order to finish what he started. And we went right along with it. If all this was true, why did the court decide that it was Terry's wishes to die? Broorel You have made it very clear that you are more than willing to subjegate human life when it doesn't fit into your box. Mind not putting words in my mouth? When did I say I agreed with killing disabled people? If anything, I was saying that I could see where they might be coming from. Doesn't mean I agree with it. Broorel As far as "abortion will only kill more if illegal". That's like saying "well, murder onlly kills more if it's illegal, we should set up state funded murders" Hmm . . . no it's not. If murder were legal in some way, more people would die. Abortion kills more if it's illegal because odds are that just as many women will want to abort, but there won't be a safe way to do so. It has happened in the past, and it will happen again. People have been known to try using coathangers, to throw themselves downstairs, to go to 'doctors' who have no sterilised equipment and no proper anaesthetic. Mothers will die as well as children. Broorel No, if illegal, the vast majority of women facing unwanted pregnancies would suck it up and carry to term. Those who do not fall in the same catagory as people who use illegal drugs. They are knowingly partaking in a potentially risky, unregulated, procedure in order to break the law. Countless children would be saved, and the number of maternal mortality would go up only marginally. All the sympathy I have for abortive women comes in reaction to societal pressure, if those pressures were allieviated, and support systems were in place, I would have little pity for someone who was so desperate to kill he child that they took illegal steps to make sure it happened. I'm not going to make theft legal just because some deseperate people die while stealing a stereo, and I'm not going to settle for abortion being legal just because desperate people want to kill their children. You really think so? I don't. But it's not like we can prove either way, so *shrugs* Now women who abort illegally are similar to drug users? Drug users do something illegal because they're addicted; they feel they can't function without it. They're despoerate, but in a different way. There are any number of reasons that women abort. I sincerely doubt that there are women out there who are addicted to abortions. So I don't think they can be fairly compared to drug users. Yes, but there is nothing in place. The pressures still exist and there are no suport systems, so if abortion were to become illegal tomorrow, we would have at least some women desperate enough to take illegal steps to stop their pregnancy. Broorel Oh and one more thing, I know we keep pointing this out to you, but you don't seem to get it: Yes, it was someone pro-choice who would suggest such legislation. They're sole reasoning is to protect women who abort late term fetuses. Only pro-choicers support such act and such women's right to even have said act performed. Thus, the type of person who would support this meassure is pro-choice and thus a "choicer". I have no idea what comment/s of mine you're referring to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:18 pm
SM, No, that infant was not issued a certificate of live birth. That is not the point, the point is that other children born alive at that stage of development are considered *persons*. Not having a birth certificate is not enough to individually lose personhood, however if no human at your developmental stage is considered a "person" by merit of certificate of live birth, anyone who falls into that group will have personhood stripped away. As far as Terri, ONE judge decided she could be starved, and dehydrated to death. ONE. The rest simply did not have the power to overthrow his ruling. It was a convoluted case, but it all came down to the opinon of one man. Additionally, the media was not truthful in its portrayl of Terri, Her condition, Micheal, or the Shindlers. It was a massive propaganda campaign. As far as abortion occuring at the same rate regardless of legality, that is patently untrue. Do you honestly belive that abortion is so much different than murder that legality would not deter individuals from commiting a crime? Sure people will still have abortions, people still murder, but it would happen at a much lower rate than it currantly does. 4000 abortion occur each day in America. There's no WAY that number would remain at that level abortionists were shut down, and no more were able to pop up. That's one big thing that makes abortion so unique. It is a paid for service type crime (if hypothetically illegal) A woman can not simply abort herself (the % of women who self-abort is marginally low) thus, if the doctor is arrested and shut down, there is simply no one to provide the service. This in itself will reduce the number of abortions. A support system and overhall of the abortion mindset would have to occur concurrantly with making abortion illegal. This would happen naturally as the "responsiblity to abort" would be thrown out. Yes, there are some women desperate enough to abort, but no where NEAR the number who currantly do. scribblemouse It wasn't the pro-choice who suggested it, as I recall. This is what I was refering to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:57 am
Broorel scribblemouse It wasn't the pro-choice who suggested it, as I recall. This is what I was refering to. I was meaning; 'It wasn't the pro-choice who suggested that women who want to abort for financial reasons should be given financial support'. I thought I should clear that up. It seems that since I don't agree with everything everyone else says (as apparently I'm supposed to) I have to keep out of this forum. I suppose they don't like the sheep to get upset. Toodles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:05 am
oh that isn't even remotely fair
all of us have certian differences in views.
Besides, how can you call us the sheep when most people are against what we stand for?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:25 am
SM, It's not that you don't agree with *everything* *everyone* thinks, it's that you do not agree with any pro-life view.
It would be like me going into the pro-choice guild and saying "Well, I think abortion should be illegal, that fetuses are people, that they have a right to the mothers womb, and that abortion is wrong...but I'm still pro-choice right guys?"
"What? You say I'm not? Well I just have a different interpretation of what it means to be "pro-choice...jeeesh you are all a bunch of sheeple!"
We have an entire subforum dedicated to discussion between pro-life and pro-choice individuals. The exact same conversation you're having here could be had there.
This main forum though, is for pro-life views and opinions. The other side has their sanctuary and we deserve ours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:45 pm
i don't know about that, maybe she just likes to argue
it's a good way to find out information really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 12:06 pm
MiNdCaNdY i don't know about that, maybe she just likes to argue it's a good way to find out information really. Hey, someone hit it on the nose!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 3:22 pm
i must say that i agree with the oppinion of scribblemouse on the issue of deeds and doccuments. they are all really just trash that serves to validate reality when reality is its own validation.
in an ideal world, things would not be seen by definition, they wouldn't be seen through, around and of loopholes in law and dictionary. unfortunately, our world isn't like that. until we are able to break the stupid confinements of seeing a definition rather than an object or soul, we're going to have to follow the rules- as in, write a birth certificate for a child who was born and died, just for the sake of keeping it a person in the idiocy of definition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
