or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › AppleOutsider Abortion Thread v1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AppleOutsider Abortion Thread v1 - Page 6

post #201 of 237
and you can say thank you to me, Groverat because with my help your thread reach 200 answers !
post #202 of 237
Toolboi, there is so much that I disagree with in your previous post that I would not even know where to begin.
Good, Id be scared if you agreed with a lot of what I said. After all, Im an extreme pro-choice and your quite the opposite.

It is simply a disease to be dealt with however the mother sees fit.
Well, actually. In the purest break down of the word it is a "dis-ease"
Actually though I do see it as something to be delt with however the mother sees fit. The disease part is a little rough but...

Your entire post centers around the point that it is not a child...A plant growing in an area not wanted, or more generically, a weed.

Then your missing the point of the analogy.
Let me propose the famous violinist example, as its less... harsh. (oh, and it wasnt actually supposed to be a weed, again i messed that up, it was supposed to be a baby who drifts in through the window and starts to thrive in your shag rug )
(All these arguments gotten, though butchered fairly badly I fear, from the formentioned paper)
Durring the night by some odd circumstance of misfortune a famous violinist manages to get him self hooked into your blood system. Your told that for 3 months you have to have him sucking off of your system, and you will not be able to lead your current life. However due to some rare blood type you are the only person around who CAN support him, and are required to do so or else he would die.
Naturally this would offset your life GREATLY.
Now, how immoral would it be to unhook your self from the violinist? No one would tell you that your being immoral because you dont give up 3 months of your life for this guy whom you dont even know.

The plant thing was a way to point out that its absurd to say "You either have to live your life celibate or deal with the results of having a child!". You see, in this case each option infringes on the mothers autonomy.

Say what you are really saying, don't beat around the bush. She should have the option to kill it.


My point was that the rape part had more or less been covered, and thus I was trying to cover the inconvenience part. Yes, she should have the option to kill it as long as theres no other option available. For example, in the later periods purely killing the child should be wrong as long as the option of a C-section is available.
The right to autonomy does not equate the right to having the child killed.
However i dont see this as much of an issue as by the time a C-section is an option the mother should have made up her mind.

you believe a plant and a human have the same rights I suppose that would fly

You missin it Noah, however perhaps I was unclear, so lets simplify.
Replace the word plant with the word baby, or perhaps if you like, replace the whole circumstance with the following (there mght be some flaws in this one, I jsut made it up off the top of my head):
A rich doctor friend of yours has found a way to implant a child within YOU Noah. He takes a sample of your tissue, uses the whole clone technique with a empty egg cell and starts the growth of an embryo. Then one day he says that he really needs a human test subject to try the implant procedure with, and guantees that he will take it out afterwards. You wake up some hours later and he tells you, "Im sorry Noah, there was a complication and the child is now stuck growing inside of you"
"The problem" he informs you "is that due ot complications, if we WERE to take it out as we were planning, it would die and we can not allow that"

So Noah, do you let it grow inside of you? Or more importantly, should we pass laws that make it so that you HAVE to let it grow inside of you in the event that a doctor implants something in you secretly?
In the case of rape, what if the doctor knocked you out and did it without your permission?

Karma police
arrest this girl,
her Hitler hairdo
is making me feel ill
and we have crashed her party.
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
post #203 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:
Well, actually. In the purest break down of the word it is a "dis-ease"
Actually though I do see it as something to be delt with however the mother sees fit. The disease part is a little rough but...<hr></blockquote>

Just dealing with it like you suggest is a bit rough for me.

[quote]Then your missing the point of the analogy. Let me propose the famous violinist example, as its less... harsh. (oh, and it wasnt actually supposed to be a weed, again i messed that up, it was supposed to be a baby who drifts in through the window and starts to thrive in your shag rug )
(All these arguments gotten, though butchered fairly badly I fear, from the formentioned paper)
Durring the night by some odd circumstance of misfortune a famous violinist manages to get him self hooked into your blood system. Your told that for 3 months you have to have him sucking off of your system, and you will not be able to lead your current life. However due to some rare blood type you are the only person around who CAN support him, and are required to do so or else he would die.
Naturally this would offset your life GREATLY.
Now, how immoral would it be to unhook your self from the violinist? No one would tell you that your being immoral because you dont give up 3 months of your life for this guy whom you dont even know.<hr></blockquote>

Umm, I understand that it was an analogy, but usually with an analogy you try to put a situation that is fairly comparable so that your point is made in a meaningful way. Comparing a baby to a weed is hardly the same thing.

And then your violinist example, totally off the wall. Let's see here. Why a famous violinist? That is just off the wall. How is that the same thing? A vampire (someone hooked into my blood system) is not the same as a baby. The situation you mention is not a natural thing, at all. Are you trying to say that pregnancy is abnormal, unnatural, or wrong? Because if you believe that then your argument might stand, otherwise once more it fails on many points. Many points.

[quote]The plant thing was a way to point out that its absurd to say "You either have to live your life celibate or deal with the results of having a child!". You see, in this case each option infringes on the mothers autonomy.<hr></blockquote>

I am sorry if it is so terrible that someone ask a mother to be responsible when the possibility exists that she might create a new life and then to ask her to be responsible for her actions. (and i know that you are itching to bring up rape, everyone always does in this case) which leads us to your next post.

[quote]My point was that the rape part had more or less been covered, and thus I was trying to cover the inconvenience part. Yes, she should have the option to kill it as long as theres no other option available. For example, in the later periods purely killing the child should be wrong as long as the option of a C-section is available.
The right to autonomy does not equate the right to having the child killed.
However i dont see this as much of an issue as by the time a C-section is an option the mother should have made up her mind.<hr></blockquote>

Umm ok, here we go. the mother should have the option to kill the child if there is no other option? I disagree. That's enough there unless you need to hear more.

And yes, in your examples the right to autonomy does equate the right kill the child if the mother feels that it is too inconvenient or painful to be pregnant.

[quote]You missin it Noah, however perhaps I was unclear, so lets simplify.
Replace the word plant with the word baby, or perhaps if you like, replace the whole circumstance with the following (there mght be some flaws in this one, I jsut made it up off the top of my head):
A rich doctor friend of yours has found a way to implant a child within YOU Noah. He takes a sample of your tissue, uses the whole clone technique with a empty egg cell and starts the growth of an embryo. Then one day he says that he really needs a human test subject to try the implant procedure with, and guantees that he will take it out afterwards. You wake up some hours later and he tells you, "Im sorry Noah, there was a complication and the child is now stuck growing inside of you"
"The problem" he informs you "is that due ot complications, if we WERE to take it out as we were planning, it would die and we can not allow that"

So Noah, do you let it grow inside of you? Or more importantly, should we pass laws that make it so that you HAVE to let it grow inside of you in the event that a doctor implants something in you secretly?
In the case of rape, what if the doctor knocked you out and did it without your permission?<hr></blockquote>

Well that is a bit closer to an analogy where the decisions are closer than a plant and a baby. I went into this knowing that they were going to be implanting a baby into me and thinking that the baby would be removed after a bit. Then for some reason that baby cannot be removed. First, if I carry this child to term I will die, guaranteed. There is no way that the male body can accommodate a baby and have the man live. So I have just killed myself. Second of all, this child is a clone and not a natural pregnancy so the likelihood of the child living or even surviving is further reduced. So in this situation both lives are in danger. It is virtually assured that I will die and it is also virtually assured that the child will die and the whole thing is unnatural. So I guess in that case I would have it removed. Tough call even in this bizarro situation. But when it is assured that both will die, and even if the child were carried to term that the child would die then in that case I feel that the parent should live. As I said, tough call.

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #204 of 237
Why a famous violinist? That is just off the wall. How is that the same thing?

ARGH! (at my own stupidity) Remind me never to use bits of some one elses argument out of context.
Ok, the idea of the famous violinist bit was to fight off the people who say that you are "possibly depraving the world of something great". It could be any human, hell, if you want to simplify it say that you need to give blood for a child in an incubator.
The basic idea behind it was that a scientist (representing the father) hooks up this famous violinist (the child) against your will, would you have to take care of him?

That's enough there unless you need to hear more
Yes, I admit that that is the direct issue with which we are dealing here

Perhaps I should refrain form further commenting on these arguments for the points stated above. Each of my analogies are part of a greater whole and simply dont hold water without it (I realize that now, too bad that I didnt before).
However I will stick with my last argument, the one that I actually made up, due to the fact that I want to refine it.

I am sorry if it is so terrible that someone ask a mother to be responsible when the possibility exists that she might create a new life and then to ask her to be responsible for her actions.

This is more than a simple case of being responsible for her actions. Let us indeed assume that (as the weed case was supposed to be an example of) the woman is indeed being "responsible" about it in that she is using birth control. In the case that a child "slips through" due to a "screen being faulty" or one of the other things, thats hardly reason that she should have to bear the burden that a child imposes. For instance, lets say that a racoon manages to pop open one of your "racoon proof" screens (dont you like fresh air at night?) and slips in to sleep next to your stove on a cold winter night durring which it would assuredly freeze. Are you obliged to allow it to stay, even if it means that you can not carry out your normal house hold chores due to its being here. Perhaps you should have known better and kept your windows closed, however does this possibillity justify your living in a stuffed up house full of stale air? Similarly, why should a woman have to refrain form sexual urges (much stronger than a simple desire for fresh air) simply because there is a possibillity that a "racoon could slip in"?
In the case of rape, lets say that a man forces his way into your house, not asking to come in, but forces his way in. He would certainly die without being able to stay in side, but does that mean that you have to allow him in? This isnt even as bad as the case of a pregnancy, in the later you also have the physical, and psycological changes to cope with aswell. Say if he demanded that you cook for him or hung on to you so that moving was troublesome
Now, before you bring up the issue of "but that isnt a child" let me ask that you to specifically cover why the rights of an unborn child would be greater than that of an animal of high intelligence. If this debate turns down that road (which it may have to) than were gonn ahve to start another thread

First, if I carry this child to term I will die, guaranteed. There is no way that the male body can accommodate a baby and have the man live.

Bah, I said that the doctor figgured out a way in which it could happen didnt I?
The idea is that he CAN do it, and that this clone (if you like say he included some of his own DNA as well to get a nice mix) WILL live. If youd like say that he does this to a woman, and definatly knows how to make a successful clone. I only used you to draw you deeper into it as a person making a decision.

This is great, I need to refine my debating skills, and this is great practice
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
post #205 of 237
toolboi, pardon me if i missed where you posted this earlier, but at what point exactly do you believe that a fetus becomes a human baby and is given full protective rights accordingly?
post #206 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:
ARGH! (at my own stupidity) Remind me never to use bits of some one elses argument out of context.
Ok, the idea of the famous violinist bit was to fight off the people who say that you are "possibly depraving the world of something great". It could be any human, hell, if you want to simplify it say that you need to give blood for a child in an incubator.
The basic idea behind it was that a scientist (representing the father) hooks up this famous violinist (the child) against your will, would you have to take care of him?<hr></blockquote>

Once more we are avoiding the whole natural vs. unnatural. When a person has sex it is natural for pregnancy to occur. It is not against their will it is a fac to flife. You cannot change that unless you remove the uterus or ovaries from the woman or the testicles from the man. No eggs, no sperm, no baby. So if you want the ultimate safe sex then I guess you need to spay or neuter.

Quote:
Perhaps I should refrain form further commenting on these arguments for the points stated above. Each of my analogies are part of a greater whole and simply dont hold water without it (I realize that now, too bad that I didnt before).
However I will stick with my last argument, the one that I actually made up, due to the fact that I want to refine it.<hr></blockquote>

Fine. I don't beleive they hold water even with their full backup but I will concede that without the backup they are simply too weak for this forum.

Quote:
This is more than a simple case of being responsible for her actions. Let us indeed assume that (as the weed case was supposed to be an example of) the woman is indeed being "responsible" about it in that she is using birth control. In the case that a child "slips through" due to a "screen being faulty" or one of the other things, thats hardly reason that she should have to bear the burden that a child imposes. For instance, lets say that a racoon manages to pop open one of your "racoon proof" screens (dont you like fresh air at night?) and slips in to sleep next to your stove on a cold winter night durring which it would assuredly freeze. Are you obliged to allow it to stay, even if it means that you can not carry out your normal house hold chores due to its being here. Perhaps you should have known better and kept your windows closed, however does this possibillity justify your living in a stuffed up house full of stale air? Similarly, why should a woman have to refrain form sexual urges (much stronger than a simple desire for fresh air) simply because there is a possibillity that a "racoon could slip in"?
In the case of rape, lets say that a man forces his way into your house, not asking to come in, but forces his way in. He would certainly die without being able to stay in side, but does that mean that you have to allow him in? This isnt even as bad as the case of a pregnancy, in the later you also have the physical, and psycological changes to cope with aswell. Say if he demanded that you cook for him or hung on to you so that moving was troublesome
Now, before you bring up the issue of "but that isnt a child" let me ask that you to specifically cover why the rights of an unborn child would be greater than that of an animal of high intelligence. If this debate turns down that road (which it may have to) than were gonn ahve to start another thread <hr></blockquote>

Now you are either missing or ignoring the point I am making. Unless you remove the reproductive organs of the people involved in sexual activity there is no sure thing for preventing pregnancy except abstinance. If you have sex protected or not and get pregnant you should be resposible enough to accept that this is a result of your sexual activity and you should be resposible with the LIFE that is now inside you. It is not a weed, a raccoon, a man that could find another way to survive (being that he has much higher intelligence than an unborn child), or any other off the wall situtaion you try to equate this with.

Bah, I said that the doctor figgured out a way in which it could happen didnt I?
The idea is that he CAN do it, and that this clone (if you like say he included some of his own DNA as well to get a nice mix) WILL live. If youd like say that he does this to a woman, and definatly knows how to make a successful clone. I only used you to draw you deeper into it as a person making a decision.

If it is assured that I would survive and if it assured that the child will survive. (At least as good odds as a normal pregnancy) then I would probably carry it through. But I would never consent to having a cloned child implanted in me in the first place as I have ethical issues with cloning as well.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #207 of 237
Just a question. I won't argue with or for any answers. It's just a question.

If the moment when a sperm fertilizes an egg is the defining moment of life. What would you call if if you had an egg and a sperm in a woman, but kept them within a millimeter of touching/fertilizing. Would that be an abortion of a pregnancy in progress?

Is wearing a condom an abortion of a pregnancy in progress, because you are preventing the life, that would otherwise have formed, from becoming a full fledged person? Isn't a condom stopping babies from being born just as much as taking the fertilized egg/fetus out of the human as soon as you find out they touched?

For that matter, isn't abstinence, in essence, an abortion or at least a prevention of a life? If I had never had sex with my ex that one time, my daughter would never have been born. Would that have been immoral?

If a woman jumping up and down the morning after sex had the effect of detaching a sperm from the egg, would that be an abortion?

Is it only an abortion because it's performed medically? Or is it an abortion because the egg and sperm have touched now so "too late, deal with it"?

Is a miscarriage an abortion by God? Or is it just God "working in mysterious ways"?
post #208 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by seb:
<strong>Is wearing a condom an abortion of a pregnancy in progress, because you are preventing the life, that would otherwise have formed, from becoming a full fledged person? Isn't a condom stopping babies from being born just as much as taking the fertilized egg/fetus out of the human as soon as you find out they touched?
...
Is a miscarriage an abortion by God? Or is it just God "working in mysterious ways"?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Technically, a miscarriage IS an abortion - that's what they're called.

I wouldn't call preventing a pregnancy an abortion. But doesn't the Catholic church see "spilling seed" as in masturbation or oral or anal sex as a sin for that reason, i.e., that sex should be for procreation?

Your hypotheticals about the sperm and the egg raise the stem-cell issue, because they're usually derived in a similar way - in test tubes.

Technically, pregnancy doesn't start until the fertilized egg descends into the uterus. So if it's a "test tube baby," where the egg is fertilized in a laboratory rather than the regular way, pregnancy has obviously not occurred. So is it destroying a human life to destroy a fertilized egg in a test tube?

The "morning-after" pills are another good example of this. They're just high doses of birth control pills. I believe they stop a pregnancy from occurring and technically, don't cause an abortion.

RU 486 is different because it does cause an abortion, but it's going to be in the first month or so after pregnancy. I think RU 486 will basically cause the abortion issue to go away, because most people see it as less objectionable when it's done in the first month with a pill.
post #209 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by seb:
[QB]If the moment when a sperm fertilizes an egg is the defining moment of life. What would you call if if you had an egg and a sperm in a woman, but kept them within a millimeter of touching/fertilizing. Would that be an abortion of a pregnancy in progress?

Is wearing a condom an abortion of a pregnancy in progress, because you are preventing the life, that would otherwise have formed, from becoming a full fledged person? Isn't a condom stopping babies from being born just as much as taking the fertilized egg/fetus out of the human as soon as you find out they touched?

For that matter, isn't abstinence, in essence, an abortion or at least a prevention of a life? If I had never had sex with my ex that one time, my daughter would never have been born. Would that have been immoral?<hr></blockquote>

In all of these circumstances it is not an abortion.

a·bor·tion (e-bôrshn)
n.
1. a. Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
b. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.
2. The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage.
3. Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.
4. An aborted organism.
5. Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.

So by definition it cannot be an abortion if it was never a life to begin with. It would be a prevention of pregnancy because fertilization never happened.

[quote]If a woman jumping up and down the morning after sex had the effect of detaching a sperm from the egg, would that be an abortion?<hr></blockquote>

that would be medically impossible, that is what that would be.

[quote]Is it only an abortion because it's performed medically? Or is it an abortion because the egg and sperm have touched now so "too late, deal with it"?<hr></blockquote>

It is an abortion if it prematurely ends the life of a child developing in the womb. there are spontaneous abortions called miscarriages, and there are induced abortions that we are all so uptight about in one way or another.

[quote]Is a miscarriage an abortion by God? Or is it just God "working in mysterious ways"?<hr></blockquote>

Can't answer that. Ask God, maybe he will tell you, he's not letting me in on this one.

Overall, if you are meant to be pregnant then you will get pregnant. If you have sex, are wearing a condom, your wife has the feminine condom, foam, jelly, spermicide, and a little stop sign telling the sperm to go back, if she is meant to be pregnant none of that will work. If she is not meant to be pregnant, you could have sex with no protection and never once have a pregnancy. That is God "working in mysterious ways". Every child is a gift from God. Not a punishment, not something you are smitten with. A gift. unfortunately some people do not see it that way.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #210 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
Technically, pregnancy doesn't start until the fertilized egg descends into the uterus. So if it's a "test tube baby," where the egg is fertilized in a laboratory rather than the regular way, pregnancy has obviously not occurred. So is it destroying a human life to destroy a fertilized egg in a test tube?<hr></blockquote>

A fertilized egg in a test tube is man playing god.

[quote]The "morning-after" pills are another good example of this. They're just high doses of birth control pills. I believe they stop a pregnancy from occurring and technically, don't cause an abortion.<hr></blockquote>

No, if i recall correctly they prevent the fertilized egg from implanting into the uterine wall. So technically it is an abortion. About as early on as you can get.

[quote]RU 486 is different because it does cause an abortion, but it's going to be in the first month or so after pregnancy. I think RU 486 will basically cause the abortion issue to go away, because most people see it as less objectionable when it's done in the first month with a pill.<hr></blockquote>

RU486 will be just like abortions used to be. At first it will only be early on, then it will likely start to be abused by people who do not want their child later on in the pregnancy. I don't know this for a fact, but if they can do partial birth abortions and call that OK, RU486 will be used more than just in the first trimester.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #211 of 237
Pro Choice and I really couldn't give a rat's *** what anyone else has to say on the matter so I didn't even bother reading.
post #212 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "morning-after" pills are another good example of this. They're just high doses of birth control pills. I believe they stop a pregnancy from occurring and technically, don't cause an abortion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, if i recall correctly they prevent the fertilized egg from implanting into the uterine wall. So technically it is an abortion. About as early on as you can get.</strong><hr></blockquote>These are really definitional issues, but a pregnancy starts when the fertilized ovum is implanted in the uterine wall, not at conception. It's usually a week or two after conception.

An abortion occurs only after a pregnancy has occurred, so the morning after pill doesn't really cause an abortion. Like I said, it's just definitional, but those are the medical definitions, so it's just being accurate.

Also, the morning-after pill will prevent an ovum from being released too, so it's possible that the sperm are still in her body but conception hasn't yet occurred, and the morning-after pill would then stop conception from occurring.

In the end, when a woman takes the morning-after pill, no one will ever know if it stopped the process before or after fertilization.

I got most of the info from <a href="http://religioustolerance.org/abo_cont.htm" target="_blank">this web page,</a> which is on a liberal religious site.
post #213 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>These are really definitional issues, but a pregnancy starts when the fertilized ovum is implanted in the uterine wall, not at conception. It's usually a week or two after conception.

An abortion occurs only after a pregnancy has occurred, so the morning after pill doesn't really cause an abortion. Like I said, it's just definitional, but those are the medical definitions, so it's just being accurate.

Also, the morning-after pill will prevent an ovum from being released too, so it's possible that the sperm are still in her body but conception hasn't yet occurred, and the morning-after pill would then stop conception from occurring.

In the end, when a woman takes the morning-after pill, no one will ever know if it stopped the process before or after fertilization.

I got most of the info from <a href="http://religioustolerance.org/abo_cont.htm" target="_blank">this web page,</a> which is on a liberal religious site.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thank you for clearing that up. As I said, I was not sure but thought what I had written was for the most part correct. It appears that it was correct overall, just the fine line of definitions were off. Conception versus actual pregnancy.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #214 of 237
for any one jsut ocming itno this argument, dont bother reading it all, we basically just say the same thing over and over and over

So if you want the ultimate safe sex then I guess you need to spay or neuter.


Or that "tap" visectamy that you can durn on and off

I don't beleive they hold water even with their full backup but I will concede that without the backup they are simply too weak for this forum.

Thats not fair, your judging before youve read the paper
The person who wrote it (I cant even remember her name at the moment) must hate me

there is no sure thing for preventing pregnancy except abstinance. If you have sex protected or not and get pregnant you should be resposible enough to accept that this is a result of your sexual activity and you should be resposible with the LIFE that is now inside you

Ok, Im getting what your saying, however the point is that in the case where they HAVE used protection they have TRIED (be it unsucessfully) to prevent it, so its not GROSS negligence.
Im going ot quote another person in this thread, if you dont want to get in a car accident, do you not get in a car? It seems absurd to limit your life on this account. Because you got in the car does it mean that yo uare morally responsible for your being killed when your rammed by a for explorer or <a href="http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.jpg" target="_blank">Kenworth Pilgramage?</a>
I know that your claiming the "this is natural thats not" defense, however in this case I think that the analogy still holds. Change it if you like to "do you not swim for fear that you could drown" or many other analogies.

It is not a weed, a raccoon, a man that could find another way to survive (being that he has much higher intelligence than an unborn child), or any other off the wall situtaion you try to equate this with.


what does intelligence have to do with anything? The point is that if something forces its way into your space, or starts using your personal resources (in this case you your self) should you not have the leagal and moral option of denying it, even if it means death.
Enlighten me. Make a defensive argument.

Ahh Seb, great questions
I dont know how to answer them.

If it is assured that I would survive and if it assured that the child will survive. (At least as good odds as a normal pregnancy) then I would probably carry it through.

Ahh, but should you LEAGALLY HAVE to carry it through?

[i]A fertilized egg in a test tube is man playing god.[/i

God is dead! Thus we must become the Ubermensch
I have trouble with this one, and with the cloning bit, because almost everything that is creative is man playing god. Any how, thats off topic, but Ill make my point that I dont mind man playing god

but at what point exactly do you believe that a fetus becomes a human baby and is given full protective rights accordingly?

Actually I dont think that this is a call that any one can make.
Im finally starting to see the flaw in my analogy that Noah was pointing out. The rights of a human being. In the case of rape I think that my example still works, please critisize (constructivley, right?) it as much as possible.
So how do I think around this one... the rights of a human being...
So let us suppose (since its PURELY the rights of a human that we are dealing with) that the fetus is equivilent to a human (IMO this is the case). So if this is so, then can a man in danger of being killed by a mob hide in your house even if you dont want him there?
Or perhaps you (being the general pro-lifers out there) want an abortion analogy, lets say that the neighbors kid needs blood badly, but not only that, he has to and he has your type, a type not found any where else. Lets suppose that being the kind hearted generous person that you are you do consent to this, much like you would consent to being pregnant. Now lets say that half way through the procedure you find that you can no longer cope. Your health is failing, and being in bed constantly is getting you emotionsally down.
Does he have the right via his right to life to demand that you MUST stay there giving blood, rather than unhooking your self?
Imagine this case if they DIDNT ask you?
If your answer is yes, then fine, so be it, Ill stop arguing.
If no, then do we admit that there are times when the human right to self autonomy over rides the human right to life?
"Give me liberty or give me death!"

No this does not moralize abortion... yet...
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
post #215 of 237
[quote]Im going ot quote another person in this thread, if you dont want to get in a car accident, do you not get in a car? It seems absurd to limit your life on this account. <hr></blockquote>

one problem with this analogy. let me rephrase it for you so that it matches the situation a bit better.

it's more like this. if you drink and then you drive, and you kill someone, should you be held responsible? you took precautions and only drove on back roads that are usually deserted, but this one time there happens to be someone there and you kill them.

this is what happens with an abortion. you are irresponsible. you take precautions, but this one time things don't go your way. when you have the abortion, that's the killing the other person on this road. you kill the unborn child.

it's not killing youself, it's killing someone else.

edit just to make it a little closer to the exact situation, and to take on other analogies use in this thread, imagine now that this person needs a blood donation to live, and you're the only one who can give it. you put them in that situation, you give, they live. you don't, they die. it's your fault that they need one to live, and you're the only one who can save them. in my eyes, you don't donate, you're a murderer. [/edit]

if you want to kill yourself i don't give a rip. it's when you kill someone with no say in the matter, who's innocent that it bothers me.

[ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</p>
post #216 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>

one problem with this analogy. let me rephrase it for you so that it matches the situation a bit better.

it's more like this. if you drink and then you drive, and you kill someone, should you be held responsible? you took precautions and only drove on back roads that are usually deserted, but this one time there happens to be someone there and you kill them.

this is what happens with an abortion. you are irresponsible. you take precautions, but this one time things don't go your way. when you have the abortion, that's the killing the other person on this road. you kill the unborn child.

it's not killing youself, it's killing someone else.

if you want to kill yourself i don't give a rip. it's when you kill someone with no say in the matter, who's innocent that it bothers me.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thank you! I have been circling that answer the whole time. Just could not make my fingers type it for some reason.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #217 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by The Toolboi:
Ok, Im getting what your saying, however the point is that in the case where they HAVE used protection they have TRIED (be it unsucessfully) to prevent it, so its not GROSS negligence.
Im going ot quote another person in this thread, if you dont want to get in a car accident, do you not get in a car? It seems absurd to limit your life on this account. Because you got in the car does it mean that yo uare morally responsible for your being killed when your rammed by a for explorer or <a href="http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.jpg" target="_blank">Kenworth Pilgramage?</a>
I know that your claiming the "this is natural thats not" defense, however in this case I think that the analogy still holds. Change it if you like to "do you not swim for fear that you could drown" or many other analogies.<hr></blockquote>

Liked that Pilgramage eh? Funniest SUV I have ever seen.

See my previous post in response to alcimedes. He basically said what I have been struggling with saying to you.

[quote]what does intelligence have to do with anything? The point is that if something forces its way into your space, or starts using your personal resources (in this case you your self) should you not have the leagal and moral option of denying it, even if it means death.
Enlighten me. Make a defensive argument.<hr></blockquote>

Actually you brought intelligence into it. I just put a face to the intelligence.

Your post: Now, before you bring up the issue of "but that isnt a child" let me ask that you to specifically cover why the rights of an unborn child would be greater than that of an animal of high intelligence.

[quote]Ahh, but should you LEAGALLY HAVE to carry it through?<hr></blockquote>

Not a natural thing, not the same. No. Once more this is man playing god.

[quote]God is dead! Thus we must become the Ubermensch
I have trouble with this one, and with the cloning bit, because almost everything that is creative is man playing god. Any how, thats off topic, but Ill make my point that I dont mind man playing god <hr></blockquote>

I have many problems with many playing god. Most of all, we are not perfect and have no clue what our playing god will end up with. If you can clone people do they have the same rights as non-clones? Are they really people or are they just photocopies that we can do any scientific experiments we like on them? If they do not turn out right do we just kill them and try again? I can go on if you like...

[quote]Actually I dont think that this is a call that any one can make.
Im finally starting to see the flaw in my analogy that Noah was pointing out. The rights of a human being. In the case of rape I think that my example still works, please critisize (constructivley, right?) it as much as possible.
So how do I think around this one... the rights of a human being...
So let us suppose (since its PURELY the rights of a human that we are dealing with) that the fetus is equivilent to a human (IMO this is the case). So if this is so, then can a man in danger of being killed by a mob hide in your house even if you dont want him there?<hr></blockquote>

Not the same. If you hide the man in your hose you have just endangered your entire family and yourself. I think you should try to help him but you cannot be forced to as that puts you and your family and your house at risk. And once more for emphasis, this was not because of something you did that he is in danger of dying. You made no poor choices that led to his predicament.

[quote]Or perhaps you (being the general pro-lifers out there) want an abortion analogy, lets say that the neighbors kid needs blood badly, but not only that, he has to and he has your type, a type not found any where else. Lets suppose that being the kind hearted generous person that you are you do consent to this, much like you would consent to being pregnant. Now lets say that half way through the procedure you find that you can no longer cope. Your health is failing, and being in bed constantly is getting you emotionsally down.
Does he have the right via his right to life to demand that you MUST stay there giving blood, rather than unhooking your self?
Imagine this case if they DIDNT ask you?
If your answer is yes, then fine, so be it, Ill stop arguing.
If no, then do we admit that there are times when the human right to self autonomy over rides the human right to life?
"Give me liberty or give me death!"<hr></blockquote>

This argument is flawed. One of your fundamental flaws is that you keep showing how if I do not stop my health fails, my life tanks, I cannot go on, etc. I have been with my wife through 2 pregnancies and have seen many others that were pregnant. And it is only the VERY rare case that goes to this extreme. A closer analogy would be that I began to feel uncomfortable with the needle in my arm and wanted to remove it as it did not feel good there and was making my skin sore. I am not comfortable, life is not wonderful, but it is bearable for the most part. One other thing you don't include is the time frame. 9-10 months and the pregnancy is over. Guaranteed. None of your scenarios have a time limit. You give the feeling of forever...

Also most of your arguments have been that the woman is trying to avoid being pregnant and accidentally gets that way. Does everything possible to stop it. This analogy she tries to get pregnant on purpose and then gets tired of it. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #218 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>if you want to kill yourself i don't give a rip. it's when you kill someone with no say in the matter, who's innocent that it bothers me.</strong><hr></blockquote>But even pro-life people must believe that there is a right to be free from gov't intervention into reproduction. Right? It's such a basic and private/family function, that to give the gov't a say in the matter is pretty serious.

Shouldn't there be a balance between the right to life of a developing baby vs. the right to be free of gov't intervention into something so basic?

This is why I just can't agree with the pro-life side. They say that the right to life of even a just-formed life is more important than the right of an adult to have reproductive freedom.

I basically agree with Roe v. Wade, that at the beginning of the pregnancy the rights should be weighed more toward the adult's freedom to not have a child, but as the pregnancy develops, the rights should be weighed more toward the child.

I just wish it was a law rather than a Supreme Court decision, but that's another story.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
post #219 of 237
[quote]But even pro-life people must believe that there is a right to be free from gov't intervention into reproduction. Right? It's such a basic and private/family function, that to give the gov't a say in the matter is pretty serious.
Shouldn't there be a balance between the right to life of a developing baby vs. the right to be free of gov't intervention into something so basic?

This is why I just can't agree with the pro-life side. They say that the right to life of even a just-formed life is more important than the right of an adult to have reproductive freedom.
<hr></blockquote>

in a free society, rights are always in conflict with eachother. it is accepted practice that when two rights conflict with eachother, the most basic right prevails.

i will give you that reproductive rights are pretty basic. (although pro life isn't about controlling how you reproduce, it's controlling the after effects)

the point is that someone's right to live is more fundamental than someone's right to have an abortion.

it is inconvienient to have a child. it can mess up your life. but you are still living. it is much more inconvienient to have someone else have you killed. kinda preceeds all other rights then, doesn't it? killing someone removes all rights they might have had.

-alcimedes
post #220 of 237
As much as Im loving this, I fear that I must stop this argument. Its getting me too werry (sp?) and I have to save my tired mind for yet another essay in a week (woohoo, its a research essay this time).

ANy how this will be my last post:
Intelligence: You were stating that humans beings have an intrinsic value, I just spent 6 hours on a paper about mans intrinsic value over animals being that he has a higher level of intelligence. I assumed that that was the source of this reasoning.
Its not important, just my tired ramblings.

I understand the problems that you have with "playing god". I grew up in a family with the exact same concerns. However I made up my mind early on that the only way to improve and to find out is to try. Maybe one day well create a strangelet and wipe out mankind by testing particle reactors, but at least we learnt not to d othat again
To quote Fight Club (what a wealth of great quotes):
"Marla always said that she lived her life as if she was going to die. The pity, she said, was that she didnt"
Ok, its not an exact quote.

However, this playing god thing makes it very hard for me to express the point of my argument. You see, to me a clone (assuming that its not going to be a braindead thing and all) is just as alive as a child, and thus... well... you know the drill.

If you hide the man in your hose you have just endangered your entire family and yourself
True, all these factors. I fear that I over looked that one. However lets say its the neighbor (Kramer?) who comes over and eats your food
Naw, I understand your concern.

One of your fundamental flaws is that you keep showing how if I do not stop my health fails, my life tanks, I cannot go on, etc. I have been with my wife through 2 pregnancies and have seen many others that were pregnant.

Not quite what I meant with that statment. Hows this: It is changing your body, affecting your health and your body in weird ways.
The problem wit hanalogies is the complexity of life...

A closer analogy would be that I began to feel uncomfortable with the needle in my arm and wanted to remove it as it did not feel good there and was making my skin sore. I am not comfortable, life is not wonderful, but it is bearable for the most part

I see what your saying, but your analogy is no closer, it is the opposite extreme. You have had 2 kids, can you honestly say that you think your wife would be the same person HAD SHE NOT had the children? Also, imagine if it was an unwanted child, and that you were going to give it up to adoption. All these are strong tolls on a womans mind and body.

This analogy she tries to get pregnant on purpose and then gets tired of it.

Im running out of analogies
However the point of this case was specific, and I thought that I was pointing it out. This is not a alagory for pregnancy, but rather a case of where life alone i not dufficient to strip a woman of her moral autonomy.
It was an attempt to cover a single smaller segment of the argument before moving on. I was attempting to account for the claim that a right to life over rides a right to autonomy.
Its not important now, since I have choosen not to go on any longer (I hope, I always manage ot get pulled back).

it is inconvienient to have a child. it can mess up your life. but you are still living. it is much more inconvienient to have someone else have you killed

And the point of the pro-choicer is that a woman is giving of her self to bring the child into the world, and that if she chooses she does not have to give up her "bodily resources".
Man I really should have stated this for clarity earlier on shouldnt I have?
Oh well, not with a bang but a whimper.

Good luck. I assume that as the main defender and poster (along with NohaJ) this thread will not last long. But it might.
Lets see in a week, if its still here maybe Ill have another shot at it

Thanks folks, but Elvis has left he building.
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
post #221 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>in a free society, rights are always in conflict with eachother. it is accepted practice that when two rights conflict with eachother, the most basic right prevails.</strong><hr></blockquote>Good points. I'll just sneak in with a couple of arguments:

1. When rights come into conflict, yes, the more important right takes precedence. But usually there's an attempt to find a balance and preserve as much of both rights as possible. The more important right doesn't usually totally do away with the other rights.

2. There's another issue here - in this conflict of rights, one individual is an adult and the other is still a developing human, maybe just a few cells. We make distinctions like that all the time - adults have more rights than children, citizens of the US have rights that non-citizen residents don't have, etc.

3. One disagreement: Pregnancy and childbirth are not just the after effects of reproduction. They're the after effects of sex, and sex is just the very beginning of reproduction. Pro-life laws would effect reproduction.
post #222 of 237
[quote]1. When rights come into conflict, yes, the more important right takes precedence. But usually there's an attempt to find a balance and preserve as much of both rights as possible. The more important right doesn't usually totally do away with the other rights.<hr></blockquote>

i agree. however, in this case there is no compromise. either the child lives and the woman has no right to have an abortion, or the child dies, and has no right to live. both rights are in direct conflict, and each nullifies the other. therefore, the most basic of the rights is applied.

[quote]2. There's another issue here - in this conflict of rights, one individual is an adult and the other is still a developing human, maybe just a few cells. We make distinctions like that all the time - adults have more rights than children, citizens of the US have rights that non-citizen residents don't have, etc.<hr></blockquote>

this is also true. however, there are currently no laws (outside of the unborn) where any of these groups are not given the right to live. if someone is a human by defintion, then they have the right not to be killed by another person.

to give you an understanding of just how conflicted these laws are, many states have fetal homocide laws. it makes it a felony to kill an unborn child, if the mother wanted to keep the child. if you kick a pregnant women and she loses the baby, you are charged with a crime. if she goes to the doctor and has the baby aborted, it's legal.

the only difference is the mother's desire to keep the baby. in this case, the child's right to live is not a right of its own, it is a right for the mother to give and take away.

i personally find it appalling that someone's rights as a human being can be dictated by something as frivelous as whether or not someone desires to have them around.

[quote]They're the after effects of sex, and sex is just the very beginning of reproduction. Pro-life laws would effect reproduction. <hr></blockquote>

i will concede this point. although i'm not sure that this is the case. i don't think that most people who get abortions really go into having sex (for the most part) realizing that they may actually get pregnant. in most cases, people have sex because it's fun and it feels good. the abortion is almost always an emergency fix to an unanticipated problem.

although even conceding this point does not refute the intial claim, which is that the right to life is the most fundamental right of them all. it supercedes even the right to unabandoned wild crazy sex, and the consequences that can follow.

-alcimedes
post #223 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>

.

edit just to make it a little closer to the exact situation, and to take on other analogies use in this thread, imagine now that this person needs a blood donation to live, and you're the only one who can give it. you put them in that situation, you give, they live. you don't, they die. it's your fault that they need one to live, and you're the only one who can save them. in my eyes, you don't donate, you're a murderer. [/edit]

[ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: alcimedes ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
your are wrong with that statement. If in order to save a person i have to give my blood i'll do it. But the fact to do not give it does not make you a murderer, it makes you a selfish egoist, man for sure. In France the law consider when you don't help a personn in the need, that's bad "non assistance en personne en danger : lack of assistance to a people in Danger" and you should go to jail for this, but it's not a crime like a murder.

However this statement is dangerous, it means that you have to help everypoeple in the need. It's imply that everybody should be in a list of donnor to help people with leucemia in order to give a graft (you know that there isn't sufficient donnor for grafts). When i do not reply to a letter asking to give me some bucks for vaccination in africa, i am a murderer among billions of murderer who won't give anything like me (i know in your example it say that only you can give the life)

BTW Alcimedes, i have to say you thank you because, it's always a pleasure to see people with an heart and ready to help the other, i certainly won't blame you for that. . But the fact that the other people won't do in the same way don't make them murderer, but not saint either ...
post #224 of 237
A last point about killed a life.

first there is a big discussion about when life start, i would not enter here because it has been deal here a lot. But you should take in consideration that many times there is in nearly 50 % of the case very early natural abortions due in most case to importants diseases, so every eggs implanted will not give a life (but we can know who will and who will not), it's a potential life that can laid to a baby after a big evolution. This potential life need a mother in order to survive, there is no life outside uterus under the age of 6 months.

To my advice abortions after 6 months is a murder (that's the case in China indeed : abortions is permitted until the birth), under this age you have two ways of thinking :
- the prolife : you have to give a chance to every potential life
- the prochoice, the uturus is the mother property she has the right to stop the developpement of a potential life , a potential life that would never exist without her.
post #225 of 237
[quote]your are wrong with that statement. If in order to save a person i have to give my blood i'll do it. But the fact to do not give it does not make you a murderer, it makes you a selfish egoist, man for sure. In France the law consider when you don't help a personn in the need, that's bad "non assistance en personne en danger : lack of assistance to a people in Danger" and you should go to jail for this, but it's not a crime like a murder.<hr></blockquote>

however, in this situation it is your driving drunk that puts the other person's life in jeprody. don't know about france, but in the US, if you hit someone with a car and they die, you will be charged with manslaughter/murder.

of course, analogies by definition are not exactly the same situation.
post #226 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>

however, in this situation it is your driving drunk that puts the other person's life in jeprody. don't know about france, but in the US, if you hit someone with a car and they die, you will be charged with manslaughter/murder.

of course, analogies by definition are not exactly the same situation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not sure that we talk about the same thing i was talking of your anology with people that won't give their blood and which are the unique donor available, i don't speak of a drunk man who drive a car. If a drunk man hit a personn and die it's a murder without intention to commit it in France.

My initial analogy was: if you don't take a car you will not have car accident : which is an evidence as dont have sexual relation and you will not get pregnant. I was simply try to explain that life imply a certain amount of risk, that you cannot live in a cocoon. Of course you have to control the best way you can this risk, in case of sexual relation you have to take precautions, and for car driving , you should have a good car, not to be drunk , be prudent .... But if you want the total safety you will do nothing in your life.

I am a surgeon if i want a 100 % safety operation it's simple : just dont do it. I have to take some risk, but i have to lesser them the best that i can do. Risk 0 bring to paralysis,in medecine it can bring to bad healths for the patient if the MD think only of his safety and not of the health of his patient.

I expect that i was more clear that time
post #227 of 237
ahh. read a bit futher up powerdoc. i have a feeling we're saying the same thing here. i was just borrowing a part of one of your analogies, and adding it on to the initial one i had made to make it fit the situation better.

from what your version of the blood donor analogy said, i agree with you. however, i took your analogy and made a few slight changes, then added it to the end of mine. that probably was the cause for confusion. sorry about that, i should have been more clear.
post #228 of 237
Ahh i understant now.

I think we have done a great cooking with all this analogies
post #229 of 237
What are the common denominators in this debate <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> persuasion We as people are here for that very reason. Go here, see this, drink that ,....oh you have to try this ! And companies pay millions to get the right person to persuade you everyday. So what are we selling in abortion debate? Prolife don't want children or fetusis eliminated , just let them continue as life started. Pro-abortion want the option of elimination. Our very exsistence on this planet is to make these desisions , but not to seek others opinions on what to do. We are to seek out our own CREATOR for those answers. It's when we seek others opinions, that we comfort the decision's we have already made.
I love this computer ....apple
Reply
I love this computer ....apple
Reply
post #230 of 237
One of the things you never discuss do you consider a woman intelligent enough to take the best decision for herself or you have to control everything in her life??
post #231 of 237
No.

But what's the real point of that rhetorical question? To highlight a kind of sexism perhaps? I don't trust a woman to do what's best any more than I trust a man to do what's best.

Ask a sexist question. Get a sexist answer. Sorry.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #232 of 237
[quote]One of the things you never discuss do you consider a woman intelligent enough to take the best decision for herself or you have to control everything in her life?? <hr></blockquote>

we trust people to make decisions for themselves all the time. please read through some of the recent posts before asking such a loaded question. it has to do with rights, not decision making. sometimes a person's rights override another person's decision.

wake up and smell the reality.
post #233 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Jane:
<strong>One of the things you never discuss do you consider a woman intelligent enough to take the best decision for herself or you have to control everything in her life??</strong><hr></blockquote>

I am sorry you have had such a bad life. But this has nothing to do with where you are trying to drag it. It has to do with saving a life that cannot save itself.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #234 of 237
But it has nothing to do with you guys it is a woman's thing. It might me sexist but until you can carry a seven pounds baby and have people stare at you for hours while you have to spread your legs; until you are in so much pain that you cannot stand it anymore; well you do not know how it feels. And you do not know how a woman feels when she has an abortion because you are not a woman and you refuse to see her point of view; you guys on this thread in general except for powerdoc do not respect women; you think that they are stupid and cannot take the best decision in her life not in yours. A woman is not a container just there to give birth; there are a lot more dimensions to a woman than her function to give birth; you should consider this before you start judging others.

Also, those who are pro-life you are probably very religious and you should not forget that command from Jesus that you shall judge others.

Until you can go through the pain a woman goes through when she is forced to give up her child for adoption then maybe you can condemned her for thinking that she wants something better in her life that answering to your orders.
post #235 of 237
Jane, please don't misunderstand. i'm not trying to say that you're a bad person because you had an abortion. i am also not saying that women shouldn't be respected, or that all they are good for is having babies. i don't pretend to know or claim to understand what it is like to have a child.

what i am saying, however, is that no one has the right to decide that an innocent person should be killed for convienience. i also believe that the right of an unborn child to live overrides anything other than an equivelent right.
post #236 of 237
Moanique,

Did you see "The Cider House Rules"? -- A movie that tried to look at this whole issue without a cloud of politics. I think it's presentation was quite fair, which may explain why it was roundly ignored by both sides of the debate.

It's much too convenient to turn the abortion question into a Women's rights issue and nothing
more. It is a Human rights issue that has to account for more than just the rights of women. That doesn't preclude abortion, or otherwise morally disqualify it, but it really isn't enough to say it comes down to a woman's right.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #237 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Jane:
<strong>But it has nothing to do with you guys it is a woman's thing. It might me sexist but until you can carry a seven pounds baby and have people stare at you for hours while you have to spread your legs; until you are in so much pain that you cannot stand it anymore; well you do not know how it feels. And you do not know how a woman feels when she has an abortion because you are not a woman and you refuse to see her point of view; you guys on this thread in general except for powerdoc do not respect women; you think that they are stupid and cannot take the best decision in her life not in yours. A woman is not a container just there to give birth; there are a lot more dimensions to a woman than her function to give birth; you should consider this before you start judging others.

Also, those who are pro-life you are probably very religious and you should not forget that command from Jesus that you shall judge others.

Until you can go through the pain a woman goes through when she is forced to give up her child for adoption then maybe you can condemned her for thinking that she wants something better in her life that answering to your orders.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sigh.

Jane, I have never said anything about anyone being too stupid to make up their own mind. My point all along has been that when there is a life in the balance the choice should be clear. The life should win. Also i never said women are only a container to carry children. What a jaded view of life.

As far as that command from Jesus, "Judge not lest ye be judged yourself." (Slightly paraphrased.) That does not mean you cannot judge, it means you should not judge and then not expect to be judged by the same measure you were using to judge someone else. however, nobody here is judging you that I can see.

And for the last part of your quote, .
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › AppleOutsider Abortion Thread v1