Abortion

[Sgt Schultz]

If society as a whole was to outlaw abortion then society needs to take on the burden of ensuring that those children have a basic level of care and support from society. That may entail providing welfare support to the parent(s), adequate housing, education, etc. I know quite a few people who oppose abortion yet at the same time complain about their tax dollars supporting people on welfare or who have a lot of children.

 

[palerider]

So as a group, pro choicers believe that one human being's fabricated right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human beings very real right to live. Have I got that right?

 

[Sgt Schultz]

So as a group, pro choicers believe that one human being's fabricated right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human beings very real right to live. Have I got that right?

I did not claim to speak for any group, only myself. On that I believe the woman who is pregnant should have every right to make the decision concerning her body, period. That is not a fabricated right. The fabricated right is those who claim that they have the right to tell a woman that they must carry the pregnancy to term. You nor I do not know all of the circumstances/decision making process as to why any woman would have an abortion.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

On that I believe the woman who is pregnant should have every right to make the decision concerning her body, period.

We're not trying to tell her what to do with her body.

I don't care what a given woman does to her body. If she wants to get fat by overeating -- I say eat up. If she wants to get a thousand tatoos or piercings -- power to her.

But she has no right to do whatever she wants to her baby's body.

 

[Coyote]

So as a group, pro choicers believe that one human being's fabricated right to not be inconvenienced outweighs another human beings very real right to live. Have I got that right?

Nope.

 

[Coyote]

If society as a whole was to outlaw abortion then society needs to take on the burden of ensuring that those children have a basic level of care and support from society. That may entail providing welfare support to the parent(s), adequate housing, education, etc. I know quite a few people who oppose abortion yet at the same time complain about their tax dollars supporting people on welfare or who have a lot of children.

Good point!

 

[Coyote]

See...here is where it comes down to me.

If life is sacred, then all life should be sacred.

If human life is sacred, then all human life should be sacred and that means no death penalty. It either is or it isn't.

I am unable to see a creature with no brain or nervous system as a person - or as more worthy of preservation than many other creatures that exhibit sentience. Logic and law alone do not convince me. Therefore to regard it as sacred, I must regard similar life as sacred - at the very least, that of higher mammels and birds.

In addition, when it comes to abortion the very real rights of the mother collide with the percieved rights of what she is carrying and the fact that - in the end - her body belongs to no one but her and she is the one that must ultimately live with her choices.

Consider the following - if a fetus is considered a full life, a full person, with all the rights guaranteed by that definition.

What happens when a couple has invitro fertilization or takes fertility drugs? Typically - many embryos are implanted because not all will prove viable. At some point however, some have to be removed because the mother usually can not carry that many to term. That would be murder. Yet allowing them to remain means that all will die.

What happens to stored embryos? Damaged embryos? What are their rights? They are damaged..but alive....you can't murder them.

What if the mother's life is in danger through toxemia? Do you have the right to remove the baby and kill it? If it's a person - no - it's right to life is equal to that of the mother.

 

[drippinhun]

Barabara Bush Sr. Poster child for why abortion should be legal. Case closed.

 

[palerider]

I did not claim to speak for any group, only myself. On that I believe the woman who is pregnant should have every right to make the decision concerning her body, period. That is not a fabricated right. The fabricated right is those who claim that they have the right to tell a woman that they must carry the pregnancy to term. You nor I do not know all of the circumstances/decision making process as to why any woman would have an abortion.

But it isn't her body that is being torn limb from limb. This whole question isn't about her body it is about the body being killed. Claiming that it is about her body is no more than a meaningless diversion from the fact of the death of the "other" human being.

 

[palerider]

See...here is where it comes down to me.

If life is sacred, then all life should be sacred.

If human life is sacred, then all human life should be sacred and that means no death penalty. It either is or it isn't.

The law.

Logic and law alone do not convince me.

So you are operating from a postion of faith? Need I remind you of your philosophical slip on the other thread?

In addition, when it comes to abortion the very real rights of the mother collide with the percieved rights of what she is carrying and the fact that - in the end - her body belongs to no one but her and she is the one that must ultimately live with her choices.

Percieved right of a human being? They are called human rights for a reason.

What happens when a couple has invitro fertilization or takes fertility drugs? Typically - many embryos are implanted because not all will prove viable. At some point however, some have to be removed because the mother usually can not carry that many to term. That would be murder. Yet allowing them to remain means that all will die.

As I have said, I don't believe IVF clinics should be allowed to fertilize more than one egg at a time. If the cost becomes prohibitive, then couples can adopt.

What if the mother's life is in danger through toxemia? Do you have the right to remove the baby and kill it? If it's a person - no - it's right to life is equal to that of the mother.

We have the right to protect our lives. If your life is being threatened, you have the legal right to kill in order to protect it. The one you kill doesn't have to be harming you with intent either. You don't, however, have the right to kill another human because that human might cause you some inconvenience. We are talking about killing here. There is a death. A living human being is killed most often for reasons that amount to no more than convenience.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

We're not trying to tell her what to do with her body.

I don't care what a given woman does to her body. If she wants to get fat by overeating -- I say eat up. If she wants to get a thousand tatoos or piercings -- power to her.

But she has no right to do whatever she wants to her baby's body.

Actually you are by telling her that she must carry the pregnancy to term. As I posted before if society is going to force that upon a woman then society needs to ensure that that all children are given a basic level of care and protection. Regardless of the circumstances that the parent(s) are in. That means food, shelter, education, medical care, etc.

Unfortunately for many that care suddenly stops as soon as birth happens. Then they're on their own.

 

[palerider]

So Sgt. Are you suggesting that every class who is a burden on society be subject to indescriminate killing, or just this particular class? And if you only feel that this class be killed at will, by what logic do you support continued protection of other classes?

 

[Coyote]

The law.

So you are operating from a postion of faith? Need I remind you of your philosophical slip on the other thread?

What is your definition of faith? Gypsies and necromancers? It is not the "law" that places value on human life, the law is merely the formal expression of the ethics which lie behind it. Those values aren't science...so they are what?

Ya...remind me...that other thread went on a long time and I forget some of what I said.

I still maintain that there is a distinction between a "person" and a human being. The only thing that denies such a distinction is the legal dictionary's definition of "person". Although I couldn't argue against the strict logic of your points, I don't find that strong enough by itself.

Percieved right of a human being? They are called human rights for a reason.

So you are saying that they are persons with rights fully equal to the mother, at every stage? See...this is a different argument then stemcell research because there - only the rights of one being is discussed. Here, they are weighed against the rights of another and here, I feel - is where the concept of what exactly a "person" is is important - legal definition be damned.

We have the right to protect our lives. If your life is being threatened, you have the legal right to kill in order to protect it. The one you kill doesn't have to be harming you with intent either. You don't, however, have the right to kill another human because that human might cause you some inconvenience. We are talking about killing here. There is a death. A living human being is killed most often for reasons that amount to no more than convenience.

What if your health is threatened?

Fertility drugs produce multiples - it's not implantation - what about that?

What about the other cases I mentioned?

 

[palerider]

What is your definition of faith?

Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

It is not the "law" that places value on human life, the law is merely the formal expression of the ethics which lie behind it. Those values aren't science...so they are what?

We place a value on human life and express it via the law. We also acknowledge that there are actions that can require the payment of a life and express that via the law as well.

Ya...remind me...that other thread went on a long time and I forget some of what I said.

You didn't forget. You just exposed a conflict within your philosophy that you probably didn't even know was there until you saw it in black and white. I commend you for recognizing it and not deleting it.

I still maintain that there is a distinction between a "person" and a human being. The only thing that denies such a distinction is the legal dictionary's definition of "person". Although I couldn't argue against the strict logic of your points, I don't find that strong enough by itself.

In matters of killing, the law is all we have. As things stand today, abortion is as unconstitutional as slavery was. Blacks were enslaved because a court said that they were not human beings and unborns may be killed for the very same reason.

Refer to the definition of faith. You reqire something beyond logic and whatever you care to call it, it is faith.

So you are saying that they are persons with rights fully equal to the mother, at every stage? See...this is a different argument then stemcell research because there - only the rights of one being is discussed. Here, they are weighed against the rights of another and here, I feel - is where the concept of what exactly a "person" is is important - legal definition be damned.

If the one has the right not to be killed for medical research, why would that one not have the right not to be killed for reasons that amount to no more than convenience? Do you have some special circumstance that would make you more worthy of being protected by the law than me?

And once again, the law says that a person is simply a human being without qualification.

What if your health is threatened?

If your long term health is threatened then yes, you have the right to defend yourself. That is what the law says. A short term threat is not, however a valid reason to kill.

Fertility drugs produce multiples - it's not implantation - what about that?

I am not aware of women who use fertility drugs aborting one or more of the children. I am not sure that an abortion can be performed that will targed individuals iin a multiple pregnancy. Unless you are talking about surgury.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

So Sgt. Are you suggesting that every class who is a burden on society be subject to indescriminate killing, or just this particular class? And if you only feel that this class be killed at will, by what logic do you support continued protection of other classes?

I believe I have made my position on abortion quite clear, and the responsibility of society if it is ever outlawed.