abortion
Moderator: Moderators
Post #61
Funny, that seemed to be the argument you made against abortions, that if the woman "makes a mistake," she should not receive help to rectify the problem (getting an abortion) but instead should "face the consequences (namely through not receiving medical treatment). That's how your post read. Were we mistaken about what was meant with "face the consequences"?Lycan wrote:I am not saying that people don't make mistakes. I am also not saying no one should ever receive help when they make those mistakes.
So you are saying that this should be "forced" through prohibitive legislation? So how is that different than people "should use common sense about smoking"? Yet you did not suggest that lung cancer treatment should be restricted, only that treatment of unwanted pregnancies should be restricted.Maybe I am idealistic in that I think people should think... Maybe I am asking too much for people to use common sense...
We don't see any "innocent person" in the issue relating to abortion, so that argument doesn't help any. Certainly, the US Supreme Court has ruled that "person" does not include the unborn, so your own novel interpretation doesn't even follow the legal view of abortions. SO frankly, it is irrelevant when we look at legalities and restrictions of abortion. You can have a personal BELIEF about the status of the fetus, but that is irrelevant to the legality of abortion.but one thing I will stand behind is that an innocent person should not have to die because of that.
"stupid" for not sharing your personal, unique BELIEF? Well, gee, let me ponder that.Humans amaze me, how we can be so smart, yet so stupid all at the same time...
But you are advocating the restriction of a legal medical procedure for treatment of unwanted pregnancies. She doesn't have to be abstinent, but if she get pregnant, she HAS to give birth, right? So unless she want to give birth, you are, in fact, advocating abstinence.Abstention is not what I am avocating...
"only"? Your idea rests on the man getting the right to enslave the woman, but graciously, you will restrict the enslavement to "only for a few months"? What gave you the idea that he has ANY right to enslave her at all?That wasn't my point. My point was that in each of the above "if" scenarios, the father has the right to dictate what kind of life the mother will lead.
Not necessarily, but if so only for a few months.
Why does it matter whether her life is in danger or not? Do we have the right to enslave other persons as long as it won't kill them? You need to read the US Constitution again. Once again, the Prolife goal is directly unconstitutional.I disagree, if the mothers life is in danger, why is it assumed the father would win? or if there is the treatment needed as you suggested, why again is it assumed the father would win?And these aren't just isolated cases picked out of nowhere. These situations logically follow under the "father knows best" strategy and...
You are a man, aren't you? Because only a man would be so ignorant of what a pregnancy means to the woman.For the most part pregnancy is maybe a month and a half of discomfort. It is not some horrid affliction that includes 9 months of suffering......the mother will be treated like a broodmare for the extent of her pregnancy
Eh? What unsubstantiated claim is this? You are not going for the already disproved claim of abortion causing breast cancer or something like that, are you?and fully worth a potential 70ish years of life.
Post #62
Maybe it would be more constructive to decide if the fetus is a human being or not. I think anything else is a secondary issue.
If a fetus is human, killing it is murder, and it doesn't matter what societal, psychological, familial, etc issues allow it.
If a fetus isn't human, no one can have a good argument to deny it, since it's the woman's body.
If a fetus is human, killing it is murder, and it doesn't matter what societal, psychological, familial, etc issues allow it.
If a fetus isn't human, no one can have a good argument to deny it, since it's the woman's body.
Post #63
In the abortion debate is the only time the inutero developing offspring of any reproducing species is refer to as not being a [ insert mammal of choice here].....What do you do with someone like me, who does not see the fetus in the first trimester (and a little beyond) as a person?
If the course of a normal human pregnancy ends in the production of a human, it should not matter when people think it is a "person".... it is the ending of a human... an abortion takes away the human that would have been had the abortion not taken place.
I have 2 kids, both with complications. pre-eclampsia being just one of many in both pregnancies... I had an emergency c-section with my first, but that is not to say that the majority of pregnancies are riddled with problems. In a normal pregnancy the actual discomfort is only about a month and a half.
I do not have an answer for every situation that arises, but obviously certain guidelines would have to be made. And yes, there is risk, and maybe if these risks were weighed against the orgasm, these scenerios would not be a problem. But then again we get back to the asking too much of people to think.Consider the situation of the woman who has lupus. She fears complications and so wishes the abortion. The father then asserts his right to the fetus. Since it is possible and "normal" for a woman who has lupus to successfully complete a pregnancy (50% chance), there is a good chance that the court will side with the father. What does the court say when the woman has a flare up of her lupus symptoms and needs a medication that will undoubtedly harm the fetus? She won't die from the flare up, but she will be suffering intense pain and loss of motion in her joints unless she gets the treatment. This is an extreme case -- a "what if," if you will -- but I think it's indicative of the legal morass that this subject brings up. How much suffering is too much? How many months is too many for the woman to be suffering in this way? At what risk to the mother does the pregnancy continue, a 5% chance of death? 10%? 25%?
Post #64
Addressed in a previous post.....Funny, that seemed to be the argument you made against abortions, that if the woman "makes a mistake," she should not receive help to rectify the problem (getting an abortion) but instead should "face the consequences (namely through not receiving medical treatment). That's how your post read. Were we mistaken about what was meant with "face the consequences"?
No understanding of what I was saying....So you are saying that this should be "forced" through prohibitive legislation? So how is that different than people "should use common sense about smoking"? Yet you did not suggest that lung cancer treatment should be restricted, only that treatment of unwanted pregnancies should be restricted.
And that is why Scott Peterson was charged with murder of his unborn child.... ok that makes sense... it is funny that the unborn is only a person when convenient.... my personal belief... that's funny.We don't see any "innocent person" in the issue relating to abortion, so that argument doesn't help any. Certainly, the US Supreme Court has ruled that "person" does not include the unborn, so your own novel interpretation doesn't even follow the legal view of abortions. SO frankly, it is irrelevant when we look at legalities and restrictions of abortion. You can have a personal BELIEF about the status of the fetus, but that is irrelevant to the legality of abortion
"stupid" for not sharing your personal, unique BELIEF? Well, gee, let me ponder that
lol
So unless she want to give birth, you are, in fact, advocating abstinence.
No, I'm not... further addressed in previous posts.
Female, 2 kids.You are a man, aren't you? Because only a man would be so ignorant of what a pregnancy means to the woman.
Again, no understanding... I was talking about the potential life of the child... in exchanges for a few months from the mother.Eh? What unsubstantiated claim is this? You are not going for the already disproved claim of abortion causing breast cancer or something like that, are you?
Edit to your translation: Steen's argument is not good enough, so I won't deal with it, or how it completely misinterprets and misunderstands my original claim.TRANSLATION: The prolife argument is not good enough, so I won't deal with it, or how it exposes the poor idea of my original claim.
So let me get this straight when you say I am being lame and uncivil it is because you are so insightful to what I am saying and I am being snide, but when I say you are being lame and uncivil I am saying it is because you disagree with me??? LOL, I don't think so...Let me clarify... I am saying you are being lame and uncivil because.... you are being lame and uncivil... your disagreement has nothing to do with it. Example: ST88 disagrees with me, but I highly respect ST88 for the insightful, civil, intelligent conversation. Not to mention the ST88's lack of need to tell me what I mean when I say something (you should think on that you know). So get over yourself, not everything is about you.Really? Disagreeing with you is lame and uncivil?
Post #65
So if the fetus is a person, then it get the right of a person to use another person's bodily resources against that person's will?Forge wrote:Maybe it would be more constructive to decide if the fetus is a human being or not. I think anything else is a secondary issue.
Hmm, maybe I forgot, but where is there such a right? Can I forece you to give blood against your will?
Post #66
If the fetus is a person, then that person gets the right to live. How do you propose should such a person receive what it needs to live? It is a drain on the woman's resources, so should she get rid of it? We don't send people who drain a society's resources to gas chambers.So if the fetus is a person, then it get the right of a person to use another person's bodily resources against that person's will?
Post #67
I am not sure the blood tranfusion analogy is a viable one. First, in the case of a fetus, it is, literally, a case of life or death--at our current tech base, that is. Blood tranfusions are not always life-or-death issues.steen wrote:So if the fetus is a person, then it get the right of a person to use another person's bodily resources against that person's will?
Hmm, maybe I forgot, but where is there such a right? Can I forece you to give blood against your will?
Secondly, blood transfusions can come from a variety of sources, whereas there is only one mother--again, at our current technological state.
Third, depriving someone of tranfusion blood is not illegal. However, depriving someone of an environment imperative for survival is called criminal negligence.
Post #68
Just as the patient bleeding to death. Just like the patient in kidney failure. They are all persons. Yet, without somebody's bodily resources, they will die. That is especially true for those in kidney failure. There are NEVER enough donated kidneys for those who need them, and some WILL die because they don't have the right to forcibly (but safely) extract your kidney.keltzkroz wrote:If the fetus is a person, then that person gets the right to live.Steen wrote:So if the fetus is a person, then it get the right of a person to use another person's bodily resources against that person's will?
So merely being a person doesn't give the right to use another person's bodily resources against their will. Does the kidney patient have a "right to live" that extends to taking bodily resources without permission?
Well, that IS the rub, isn't it? You want to be able to force her to give of her bodily resources even against her will. And this is because you believe that if the fetus is a person, then it has the right to those resources regardless of the woman's willingness to give them. Now, I am waiting to see if you accept that a kidney patient can fore you to safely give up your extra kidney so that he can avoid dying?How do you propose should such a person receive what it needs to live?
Your being forced to give up bodily resources to a person to satisfy his/her "right to life" shouldn't be any different. Unless, of course, you have some OTHER qualifier in there about duties that you haven't mentioned yet?
She should have the right to not give those resources if she doesn't want to. After all, YOU have that right, the right to not be forced to give of your bodily resources against your will. Or are you saying that you should have that right, but she shouldn't?It is a drain on the woman's resources, so should she get rid of it?
The people who are dying because they are not allowed to take your bodily resources are no doubt not seeing a lot of difference. They know that they will die because you don't want to safely (mortality-wise, it is safer to be a live kidney donor than it is to give birth) give of your bodily resources. You are saying that your right to keep your extra kidney that you don't need, your right to bodily integrity, that right is greater than their lives. Yet, you are saying that the woman's right is less than the fetus' right. So are you saying that the fetus has more rights than the kidney patient?We don't send people who drain a society's resources to gas chambers.
Post #69
If the person is bleeding to death, it is. Would the patient then have the right to force you to give blood?Forge wrote:I am not sure the blood tranfusion analogy is a viable one. First, in the case of a fetus, it is, literally, a case of life or death--at our current tech base, that is. Blood tranfusions are not always life-or-death issues.steen wrote:So if the fetus is a person, then it get the right of a person to use another person's bodily resources against that person's will?
Hmm, maybe I forgot, but where is there such a right? Can I force you to give blood against your will?
Or the example above, with the kidney patient. MANY (10,000's) of people die every year because their kidneys are giving up and dialysis simply can't hold them anymore. They WILL live if they get a kidney. And most of us have two kidneys and have extra capacity that we don't need in that extra kidney. It is perfectly safe for us to give one kidney, the mortality is less than from giving birth.
So we know that people **WILL** die if they can't force others to give up a kidney. Yet, they don't have that right, and 10,000s of them die every year because they DON'T have the right to use your bodily resources against your will.
Therefore, why doesn't this PERSON'S "right to life" trumph your bodily integrity? After all, you insist that the Fetus' "right to life" trumphs the woman's right to bodily integrity.
Are women second-class citizens with fewer rights than the rest of us?
And thus, the woman can be forced? That surely is bad news for those with rare blood types, they can be forced to give blood because they are the only ones available to help the bleeder with rare blood types.Secondly, blood transfusions can come from a variety of sources, whereas there is only one mother--again, at our current technological state.
If they are bleeding to death, a blood transfusion is an IMPERATIVE part of their environment. Without it they will die. Like the kidney patient.Third, depriving someone of tranfusion blood is not illegal. However, depriving someone of an environment imperative for survival is called criminal negligence.
Yet, you say such death through deprivation of resources necessary for life is not illegal. That is, UNLESS it is a fetus in a pregnant woman. So we are back to the fetus having more rights and the woman having fewer.
Still leaving the woman as second-class citizen and the fetus as some form of super-citizen with extra rights.
Post #70
Lame copout. Are you afraid of actually addressing what I am saying?Lycan wrote:Addressed in a previous post.....
Lame copout. Are you afraid of actually addressing what I am saying?No understanding of what I was saying...
And that is why, when this is appealed up through the legal system, the verdict will be thrown out as unconstitutional.And that is why Scott Peterson was charged with murder of his unborn child.... ok that makes sense...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=113it is funny that the unborn is only a person when convenient.... my personal belief... that's funny.
(That's the conclusion of Roe vs Wade, Section IX)In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.
Yes, I agree that your argument was laughable.lol"stupid" for not sharing your personal, unique BELIEF? Well, gee, let me ponder that
Lame copout. Are you afraid of actually addressing what I am saying?No, I'm not... further addressed in previous posts.So unless she want to give birth, you are, in fact, advocating abstinence.
So you are some kind of self-loathing masochist who likes to have your stressors and physical discomfort ignored and devalued. Who would have thought...!Female, 2 kids.You are a man, aren't you? Because only a man would be so ignorant of what a pregnancy means to the woman.
Don't blame your inability of being clear in your posts on my understanding.Again, no understanding...Eh? What unsubstantiated claim is this? You are not going for the already disproved claim of abortion causing breast cancer or something like that, are you?
Kind of like the potential life of a bleeder in exhange for 15 minutes of giving blood by you. Eh? You still refuse to be forced to give blood against your will for 15 minutes, yet debase 9 months of unwanted pregnancy?I was talking about the potential life of the child... in exchanges for a few months from the mother.
Nope. I am saying that your being upset with my disagreement is childish, narcissistic in its claim that mere disagreement is uncivil.So let me get this straight when you say I am being lame and uncivil it is because you are so insightful to what I am saying and I am being snide, but when I say you are being lame and uncivil I am saying it is because you disagree with me???Really? Disagreeing with you is lame and uncivil?
Ah, look how cute. A "because I say so" prolife postulation that beliefs are facts. (Yes, THAT was snide.)LOL, I don't think so...Let me clarify... I am saying you are being lame and uncivil because.... you are being lame and uncivil... your disagreement has nothing to do with it.
