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?
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.
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
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?
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.
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"?
<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.
[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.
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.
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.
<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.
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?
[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.
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.
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">
<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.
[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.
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
<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.
Comments
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.
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]" />
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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"?
<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.
[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.
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.
<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.
<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.
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...
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>
<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.
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
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">
<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]" />
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
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.
<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.