|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:58 pm
divineseraph WatersMoon110 divineseraph WatersMoon110 divineseraph [Y]ou get to decide this for another person, albeit preborn? That doesn't seem very fair. Fair or not, at least the pregnant woman is involved in the pregnancy. Having the (Federal, State, or Local) Government decide for her seems more unfair. Having control of her body taken out of her hands (even with the best of intentions) seems unfair, as well. It is no more bossing people around than a murder law. It is not saying "You MUST abort" or "You MUST give up your child for adoption", it is taking away a scenario which kills the fetus. In the same way, murder laws do infringe upon choice, but they also, and more importantly, make one option that harms another illegal. But not murdering someone doesn't take away a person's right to control their own body. Unlike a murder victim, an unborn human is using a woman's body. Thus, making abortion illegal takes away her right to deny use of her body to the unborn human. I'm not saying that it is "bossing people around". I am saying that it takes away human rights from pregnant women, without any alternative. It is the control over her body part that you seem to be ignoring. This has nothing to do with choice, and everything to do with the government taking over control of someone's body. All laws take away some right in order to protect others. In the case of murder, we take away the option to murder to protect other people. In the case of abortion, we wish to take away the option to abort to protect feti from being killed. And of course, as with murder, there are exceptions, Such as a life or death situation. Yes, we will never be able to have the freedom to do whatever we want (without being punished or face serious conciquences). If we had total freedom and no laws the world will be in chaos. So in order to prevent chaos, they have to take away some rights and create some laws. We can't just do wantever we want whenever we feel like it.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 3:24 pm
Beware the Jabberwock Haha, "I'd feel dead."
Anyway, that doesn't make much sense. I mean really if I was sleeping and someone killed me I would have no feelings toward it whatsoever.
I understand what they're trying to say, but that's just a bad way of putting it. What my friend said was never supposed to be any real part of the debate, merely a response to your statement that your boyfriend was more scared that his mom might've aborted. It was just meant to point out that not everyone feels the same way about possibly being an abortion.
Maybe if the fetus did have a say, you'd come across quite a few fetuses that wanted to be aborted. I don't really find the whole idea of giving the fetus a say a valid point of any kind. It physically can't have a say, and it feels like when someone brings up the fetus's POV that the fetus's say always has to go along with the life POV. There are plenty of people who would rather never have been born, but giving the fetus a say doesn't mean actually giving it a say, it means saying that if the fetus had a say I think it would want to live.
Sorry this kind of rambled. I should've responded this way earlier, but Waters was making a lot of the other points I wanted to make earlier, so I figured I'd wait. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:49 pm
Tyshia2 Beware the Jabberwock Haha, "I'd feel dead."
Anyway, that doesn't make much sense. I mean really if I was sleeping and someone killed me I would have no feelings toward it whatsoever.
I understand what they're trying to say, but that's just a bad way of putting it. What my friend said was never supposed to be any real part of the debate, merely a response to your statement that your boyfriend was more scared that his mom might've aborted. It was just meant to point out that not everyone feels the same way about possibly being an abortion.
Maybe if the fetus did have a say, you'd come across quite a few fetuses that wanted to be aborted. I don't really find the whole idea of giving the fetus a say a valid point of any kind. It physically can't have a say, and it feels like when someone brings up the fetus's POV that the fetus's say always has to go along with the life POV. There are plenty of people who would rather never have been born, but giving the fetus a say doesn't mean actually giving it a say, it means saying that if the fetus had a say I think it would want to live.
Sorry this kind of rambled. I should've responded this way earlier, but Waters was making a lot of the other points I wanted to make earlier, so I figured I'd wait. sweatdrop I think it's not that a fetus would always choose to live, if it could magically grasp the concept of what bad things could happen, what good things could happen, what probably will happen, could weigh these prospects, and express a wish to either live or die there. I think it's that there are some who would choose to live, and if we are to err on the side of caution, it's better to let each person have a choice instead of making that choice for each person. If someone feels that life is not worth living, they can choose that and choose to end his or her life even if that person is not aborted. If, on the other hand, someone feels that life IS worth living, that person cannot choose to go on living if someone kills him or her, claiming "It's in his/her best interest to do this." I've met very few people who think that every person saved from abortion will have a fairytale ending. It would be foolish indeed, because we can see from looking around the world at the people here that life =/= happiness. I suppose it's different when you don't think a fetus is a person, because then no harm is being done. But just as you would be appalled if someone killed an infant for his or her own good in a situation that poses no certain doom, I am appalled when a fetus is killed for the same reason because they have the same value to me. They are both people in my eyes, with equal rights. You can say "But a fetus can't make that choice," but neither can an infant. An infant can't even grasp the concept of life. It is the same as a fetus, instinct dictating its will to live. To me, killing an infant or a fetus for its own good is the same, and I think that's what I was trying to get across with my question. Would you say it's okay to kill an infant to keep him or her out of the adoption system, and you answered no, you'd find another option. Maybe you can understand, then, when a fetus and an infant are the same to many people who are pro-life, why killing a fetus to avoid the adoption system is not an option to us as much as killing an infant to avoid the adoption system is not an option to you. The law says it is not an option, but if the law said it was okay to kill an infant for the same reason, I have a feeling you'd object, because an infant is worth more to you than a fetus is. To me, and to many people who are pro-life, fetus, infant, adult, they're all the same. If someone killed an infant to avoid the adoption system, it is no different to me than if someone kills a fetus for the same reason. They are both humans with limited experience of life, they both have no concept of life and death other than what instinct dictates, they can both be killed in a way that results in no pain. Well, unless the fetus is at the end of the second trimester or the third trimester, but that's beside the point really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:40 pm
lymelady I think it's not that a fetus would always choose to live, if it could magically grasp the concept of what bad things could happen, what good things could happen, what probably will happen, could weigh these prospects, and express a wish to either live or die there. I think it's that there are some who would choose to live, and if we are to err on the side of caution, it's better to let each person have a choice instead of making that choice for each person. If someone feels that life is not worth living, they can choose that and choose to end his or her life even if that person is not aborted. If, on the other hand, someone feels that life IS worth living, that person cannot choose to go on living if someone kills him or her, claiming "It's in his/her best interest to do this." I've met very few people who think that every person saved from abortion will have a fairytale ending. It would be foolish indeed, because we can see from looking around the world at the people here that life =/= happiness. I suppose it's different when you don't think a fetus is a person, because then no harm is being done. But just as you would be appalled if someone killed an infant for his or her own good in a situation that poses no certain doom, I am appalled when a fetus is killed for the same reason because they have the same value to me. They are both people in my eyes, with equal rights. You can say "But a fetus can't make that choice," but neither can an infant. An infant can't even grasp the concept of life. It is the same as a fetus, instinct dictating its will to live. To me, killing an infant or a fetus for its own good is the same, and I think that's what I was trying to get across with my question. Would you say it's okay to kill an infant to keep him or her out of the adoption system, and you answered no, you'd find another option. Maybe you can understand, then, when a fetus and an infant are the same to many people who are pro-life, why killing a fetus to avoid the adoption system is not an option to us as much as killing an infant to avoid the adoption system is not an option to you. The law says it is not an option, but if the law said it was okay to kill an infant for the same reason, I have a feeling you'd object, because an infant is worth more to you than a fetus is. To me, and to many people who are pro-life, fetus, infant, adult, they're all the same. If someone killed an infant to avoid the adoption system, it is no different to me than if someone kills a fetus for the same reason. They are both humans with limited experience of life, they both have no concept of life and death other than what instinct dictates, they can both be killed in a way that results in no pain. Well, unless the fetus is at the end of the second trimester or the third trimester, but that's beside the point really. If I didn't entirely understand it before, I do now.
I do see a huge difference between a fetus and an infant, but I can completely understand why some would see them as the same. But truly, that's not the issue I see when I see abortion, which I guess is where the huge gap between the pro-life view and the pro-choice view comes into play.
I look at it not as saving a life or voiding a life, but as excercising rights. I'm probably bordering on pro-life personal, because I really am heartbroken that every fetus has to die during an abortion. But it comes down to the woman's rights, and a fetus's right to life does not make every right of the woman's null and void.
But that's also why I disagree with later term abortions. If the fetus is in the third trimester, it doesn't need the woman's body like a nine-week-old fetus does. The woman still has a right to remove it, but it can survive outside of the womb, and there is no reason at all to kill it in the process of removing it. There really is no reason to kill a nine-week-old fetus either, but there is no alternative but to kill it. With a 30-some week old fetus, there is an alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:48 pm
Every right? No. Pregnancy is a completely different situation.
The fetus does not simply invade for no reason. It is there due to the woman's own consensual (excluding rape) actions. Seeing as pregnancy is not random, and knowing that there are ways to avoid pregnancy in the first place, it is especially heartbreaking to us knowing that every day, 4000 feti are killed.
Because of the sheer number, and due to the situation- being that pregnancy is not random and can be avoided, we believe that the fetus should be able to trump the single right of bodily integrity ONLY in this one case of pregnancy, as it is so different from any other situation in which one being may live off of another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:49 pm
divineseraph Every right? No. Pregnancy is a completely different situation. The fetus does not simply invade for no reason. It is there due to the woman's own consensual (excluding rape) actions. Seeing as pregnancy is not random, and knowing that there are ways to avoid pregnancy in the first place, it is especially heartbreaking to us knowing that every day, 4000 feti are killed. Because of the sheer number, and due to the situation- being that pregnancy is not random and can be avoided, we believe that the fetus should be able to trump the single right of bodily integrity ONLY in this one case of pregnancy, as it is so different from any other situation in which one being may live off of another. Why is pregnancy completely different?
Because of sheer number? Does that mean if only one abortion were performed a day, you'd all be cool with it? Sheer number means nothing.
Being that pregnancy can be avoided? The majority of pregnancies that end in abortion are the result of failed contraception. Obviously, if someone's using contraception, they don't want to get pregnant. Abortion is the last resort in the majority of cases. Because pregnancy can't be avoided. No prevention method is 100%.
The simple fact is that, according to the legal system, the fetus does not trump the woman's rights. Ever.
1) To have rights, one must be recognized as a person. The law does not currently recognize a fetus as a person. It has no rights. This should be the end of the discussion. Something with no rights obviously cannot overrule someone else's rights.
2) I am allowed to use lethal force to remove someone, for example a rapist, using my body without my consent, according to law. If I can kill a born human, who has rights and who is a legal person, why can I not kill a fetus?
3) McFall vs Shrimp. I don't have to give up any part of my body ever, even if it means someone else will die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:22 pm
Tyshia2 The majority of pregnancies that end in abortion are the result of failed contraception. Actually, that isn't exactly true. While over half of the couples that have aborted (as of 2006) might have used contraception within the month they got pregnant, less than a fifth of them reported using their contraception of choice properly and consistantly. Quote: Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use. Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.htmlUnder Contraceptive Use
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:42 pm
Tyshia2 The majority of pregnancies that end in abortion are the result of failed contraception. Actually that isn't true, that is only a small fraction of abortions. Most cases of abortions, there was no protection or contraception invold or they didn't follow intructions on how to use them properly. Otherwises meaning it was due to carelessness. When using either one (especially both) properly, it rarly fails. It's suppost to work somewhere aroud 90+% of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:13 pm
Tyshia2 divineseraph Every right? No. Pregnancy is a completely different situation. The fetus does not simply invade for no reason. It is there due to the woman's own consensual (excluding rape) actions. Seeing as pregnancy is not random, and knowing that there are ways to avoid pregnancy in the first place, it is especially heartbreaking to us knowing that every day, 4000 feti are killed. Because of the sheer number, and due to the situation- being that pregnancy is not random and can be avoided, we believe that the fetus should be able to trump the single right of bodily integrity ONLY in this one case of pregnancy, as it is so different from any other situation in which one being may live off of another. Why is pregnancy completely different?
Because of sheer number? Does that mean if only one abortion were performed a day, you'd all be cool with it? Sheer number means nothing.
Being that pregnancy can be avoided? The majority of pregnancies that end in abortion are the result of failed contraception. Obviously, if someone's using contraception, they don't want to get pregnant. Abortion is the last resort in the majority of cases. Because pregnancy can't be avoided. No prevention method is 100%.
The simple fact is that, according to the legal system, the fetus does not trump the woman's rights. Ever.
1) To have rights, one must be recognized as a person. The law does not currently recognize a fetus as a person. It has no rights. This should be the end of the discussion. Something with no rights obviously cannot overrule someone else's rights.
2) I am allowed to use lethal force to remove someone, for example a rapist, using my body without my consent, according to law. If I can kill a born human, who has rights and who is a legal person, why can I not kill a fetus?
3) McFall vs Shrimp. I don't have to give up any part of my body ever, even if it means someone else will die. No, numbers are irrelevant. However, if there WERE only one every once in a while, it would be much better of a situation. For example, if it were cut down to rape victims and life-and-death situations, we would be down to about 50 a day, as opposed to 4000. And the reason would be more severe than simple convenience. 1- To counter this, remember- Blacks were once considered non-people. They were then considered only "Part of a person", for census purposes. Jews in germany were considered non-people. The direct quote was, I believe, (Pulling it from memory) "You are not a human, you are not an animal. You are a Jew." Personhood is a flawed system which, historically, doesn't work so well. 2- A rapist is actively atempting to commit a crime and harm you. Killing a person who steps on your yard is illegal, even though they are on your property. Or killing someone for brushing shoulders with you (As was legal for Samurai, actually, in Feudal Japan) They are not actively trying to hurt you or commit a crime. And a fetus is doing even less- As you like to bring up, a fetus cannot conciously choose to invade your body. In fact, the only reason it would be there would be... Who's actions now? 3- and again, no, You aren't giving up your kidney here. You're not giving up anything that will not come back. It's simply not the same, especially considering the reason the fetus is in it's condition. Tell you what- Compare it to such a situation. You hurt someone and they need your kidney. If you refuse and they die, you are charged with manslaughter, since their mortal wound was caused (inadvertently, hopefully) by you. Seems like a fair compromise to me- Allow abortion to exist, but charge those who do it with manslaughter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:34 am
Great posts, abound. Great OP, kp is dcvi and you too, divineseraph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:01 pm
Actually, I would like to apologize for the snark above, it was late. But anyway, yeah, basically my last paragraph was supposed to mean that if feti were treated as equals in a kidney sharing type situation, the result of it's death would be a charge of manslaughter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:05 pm
divineseraph No, numbers are irrelevant. However, if there WERE only one every once in a while, it would be much better of a situation. For example, if it were cut down to rape victims and life-and-death situations, we would be down to about 50 a day, as opposed to 4000. And the reason would be more severe than simple convenience. 1- To counter this, remember- Blacks were once considered non-people. They were then considered only "Part of a person", for census purposes. Jews in germany were considered non-people. The direct quote was, I believe, (Pulling it from memory) "You are not a human, you are not an animal. You are a Jew." Personhood is a flawed system which, historically, doesn't work so well. 2- A rapist is actively atempting to commit a crime and harm you. Killing a person who steps on your yard is illegal, even though they are on your property. Or killing someone for brushing shoulders with you (As was legal for Samurai, actually, in Feudal Japan) They are not actively trying to hurt you or commit a crime. And a fetus is doing even less- As you like to bring up, a fetus cannot conciously choose to invade your body. In fact, the only reason it would be there would be... Who's actions now? 3- and again, no, You aren't giving up your kidney here. You're not giving up anything that will not come back. It's simply not the same, especially considering the reason the fetus is in it's condition. Tell you what- Compare it to such a situation. You hurt someone and they need your kidney. If you refuse and they die, you are charged with manslaughter, since their mortal wound was caused (inadvertently, hopefully) by you. Seems like a fair compromise to me- Allow abortion to exist, but charge those who do it with manslaughter. How exactly is one supposed to get an abortion in cases of rape? Many times, there is no physical evidence of rape. How can one seperate the women lying to get abortions and the actual rape victims?
1. Even if the fetus is considered a person, it still won't overrule the woman's rights.
2. Like you said in your point three, since harm was caused to that person - even inadvertantly - you could be charged with manslaughter. The fetus can harm and change the woman's body permanently, as well as causing severe mental stresses (i.e. being so desperate to no longer be pregnant that women would risk their lives to get illegal abortions or self-abort). The fetus is causing harm, whether it's trying to or not.
3. I believe McFall vs Shrimp was started about not even giving up a part of the body, but being tested for a transplant match. For marrow. Which does come back. Also, you can get along perfectly well giving up one of your kidneys. It's not like certain other transplants, which risk the donar's life as well as the recipient's.
Allow abortion to exist legally, but charge people who get them legally with manslaughter? That won't fly.
Illegally, you're not exactly allowing it to exist. Just not allowing it to exist in the safe and sterile environment that it is able to be performed in now. There wasn't a huge, dramatic increase in abortions after Roe vs Wade. If a woman needed one, she got it whether it was legal or illegal. The only real difference is how and where she has to get one once it's illegal. It's a lot riskier performing any medical procedure outside of a safe medical environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 7:13 pm
WatersMoon110 Tyshia2 The majority of pregnancies that end in abortion are the result of failed contraception. Actually, that isn't exactly true. While over half of the couples that have aborted (as of 2006) might have used contraception within the month they got pregnant, less than a fifth of them reported using their contraception of choice properly and consistantly. Quote: Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use. Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.htmlUnder Contraceptive UseI wasn't aware of that. neutral
Sorry for making a semi-false claim, guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 12:06 am
Tyshia2 WatersMoon110 Tyshia2 The majority of pregnancies that end in abortion are the result of failed contraception. Actually, that isn't exactly true. While over half of the couples that have aborted (as of 2006) might have used contraception within the month they got pregnant, less than a fifth of them reported using their contraception of choice properly and consistantly. Quote: Fifty-four percent of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use. Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.htmlUnder Contraceptive UseI wasn't aware of that. neutral
Sorry for making a semi-false claim, guys. I really cant think of a way to type this with out it sounding insulting, so I mean no offence by it. Honostly, you were saying what ALOT of other choicers we;ve met have said. So, pretty much, you were just repeating what you've heard before and honostly felt was true. But, unlike ALOT of other choicers we've met, you've shown enough honosty and character to appologize when you were wrong...instead of tryign to cover your a** wiht some excuse like "Well it's what I've always been told." and sounding like a blind sheep...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 8:45 am
Tiger of the Fire But, unlike ALOT of other choicers we've met, you've shown enough honosty and character to appologize when you were wrong...instead of tryign to cover your a** wiht some excuse like "Well it's what I've always been told." I'd also like to say that I really appreciate the apology! The best thing to do when you find out that you were mistaken is always to own up to it! Tiger of the Fire and sounding like a blind sheep... I think a blind sheep would sound like: "Baa...Baa...*bonk into a wall*...Baa...Baa..." *grin*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
