Welcome to Gaia! ::

McPhee's post inspired me.

Foucault -

"Gays and the unborn have an important characteristic in common: In the minds of many people we are considered less than human." -McPhee

Foucault was a gay philosopher who made arguments about what is and isn't natural.

He observed that throughout history those who were considered more natural (i.e. black people, women, children) were often considered less than human and so were treated differently. These people were seen to be closer to nature, which is on the opposite side of the spectrum from humanity.

Foucault argued that we should never consider homosexuality as natural, but instead treat it no differently than the rest of humanity.

Treating an unborn fetus as though it were less than human is exactly the same issue. The Pro-Choicers are segregating and oppressing another level of humanity by treating them as if they were more natural than human. It's just something that grows inside them, not a person, just like a woman was just someone who cooked for her man, and not a person.


A debate today makes me need to edit this:

The Great Ape Project -

It has been proven that the most intelligent ape has the same psychological capabilities as a mentally handicapped human being. The Great Ape Project was and is a movement that is trying to give apes the same rights as humans. I know this sounds fine but there is a flaw with this idea. The apes are not human. They may resemble our ancestors, but they are still not at the same level as us. They would continue to be treated as second class citizens and never be treated as equals. Another flaw with this theory is that the apes will never have the same potential as us. Not at this time at least. The most intelligent ape has the potential to be as intelligent as a human who has not reached their true potential. The fact of the matter is that humans have more potential than apes at this current time and so they can not be considered the same creature. However, if an ape were to be considered an equal, then it would also be considered more natural in it's relation to humanity. Again, this is like a fetus. An ape must be considered a seperate animal because of its lack of potential, which also protects it from being second class citizens (an ape as an ape can be protected easier and have more rights than an ape as a second class citizen). However, an unborn child can not be considered another species because it has the undeniable potential of becoming human. If it is not another animal then it must be the same animal as us, and as such it must be given rights as a human being.


Arguments-

It's a woman's body, and so it's her choice. Okay, granted. The fetus has no brain until such and such a time (approximately the beginning of the second trimester), so it's not considered legally alive untiul that date. Alright, I can understand that. So... what you're saying that it's alright to kill a baby as long as it's not considered alive yet. Alright, but it's still inside the woman's body after it has a brain. I'm sorry, but one of your arguments is flawed. It can't be both. The woman should either be allowed to abort up until the date of birth, or you should drop the argument that, 'It's her body, it's her choice."
It was brought up to me that we should have no say about another person's life unless it affects us directly. That is why we should not be allowed to force a woman to give birth, and so the option of abortion should always be open. I'm sorry, but I'm not forcing anybody to do anything. She got pregnant. Unless I forced her to have sex there was no forcing involved, and so that argument has no grounds unless it is used in the case of rape. When a perswon does something there is always a reaction. Unless you are handicapped (in which case it is considered rape) you should understand that there is a possibility of pregnancy when having sex. You are doing something which has had a biological reaction throughout the entirety of the history of the human race!


I am Pro-Life -

I am pro-life because of my life as a human. I have learned and gained experiences (both positive and extremely negative) that I refuse to regret and will never give up. If I died today (even if by my own hand because of depression), then I would still consider my life more meaningful than if someone had taken every opportunity from me before I'd had a chance to experience it. I am against abortion because I can not stand the idea of having been aborted.

I concur wholeheartedly. Mcphee is, indeed, an inspiration. ^ ^

But, once again, I agree. The formula does apply to pro-choicers who downgrade a human fetus to nothing but a piece of meaningless tissue that has no purpose in society until it's born. v____v

Actually, if you're referring to Michel Foucault he was more of a sociologist.

I know. I studied him. He's confusing. gonk

Though one could argue a slippery slope fallacy, there is a danger, because there is no distinct line, in drawing the distinction human-but-not-a-person. I would be *sort of* okay with legal abortion IF and only if it was allowed only before the fetus began having neural activity; it's almost the same standard used for born humans: if someone's completely lacking in brain activity, there's no need to keep the rest of their body alive. Born humans, however, are afforded the opportunity to recover; only when their brain damage is permanent and irreversible is it generally acceptable to take them off life support. Fetuses haven't suffered anything out of the ordinary, they just haven't developed yet.

Thing is, pseudo-parasite or not is not an acceptable scientific determination of the right to life. Denying someone such a right based solely on their infringement upon another's bodily integrity is basically the death penalty without any regard for intent. If I accidentally hit someone with my car and broke their leg, do I deserve to be killed in retaliation?