Not exactly. Even if you justify a pro-life stance by saying that a fetus is a living being, you;re faced with the argument of whether it is your right to make the mother 'suffer' for 9 months, especially if she never intended to have a baby.
Like I said read Thomson's piece. She starts off with the presumption that the fetus IS a human.
Then she gives this analogy. You are kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers, and you have to lie in bed for 9 months with a tube connecting you to this genius musician who can only live if you make this sacrifice for 9 months. You and only you can do this; no other person can.
If you don't, this musician will die.
Now, should you be forced to sacrifice 9 months of your life to save his?
The situation becomes more complex when YOUR life is also put at risk whilst being forced to save this man's life.
Anyhow, forget that your life is ever at risk. Just think about the moral justification of forcing YOU to save another person's life. If you choose to lie in bed with a tube connecting you to this man to save him then its very generous of you. But does the Society of Music Lovers have any right whatsoever to FORCE you to do something you dont want to do in order to save him?
See these analogies. The SOciety of Music Lovers may feel that the musician is a HUGE asset to the association or even to society, but do they have any right to force their views upon you? I may think that all effort must be done to save the fetus and allow it to see the world and experience life as God intended him/her to. But do I have a right to force other people to do something they dont want to?
Al Qaeda may think America is full of shit and that they are morally corrupt. But do they have the right to come into your country and tell you how to behave? Bush may think (yeah right) that Iraqi society is backward and democracy is the best form of governance, but does he have the right to go in and change the whole system as he sees fit?
Basic right wing/left wing divide I suppose. Individual liberty vs State intervention
Thats why I think beynd religion you'll never be able to conclusively defend your pro life position; pro life meaning making abortion an illegal act. (THIS IS BY NO MEANS A PRO RELIGION POST IM ONLY TRYING TO BE OBJECTIVE)
Remember, this is from the basis that a fetus is a living thing. Nevermind if it isnt!
Bollocks. None of this metaphorical, anecdotal stuff changes anything. You still have to deal with the fact that A LOT of vehemently non-religious folks are adamantly opposed to abortion. Obviously "beyond religion".
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Bollocks. None of this metaphorical, anecdotal stuff changes anything. You still have to deal with the fact that A LOT of vehemently non-religious folks are adamantly opposed to abortion. Obviously "beyond religion".
Allright allright if you wanna bollocks that argument without actually processing it with an open mind then go ahead. I never said atheists can never be pro life. Im saying its hard to justify it thats all.
Try putting those analogies to an atheist pro-lifer, or any pro-lifer for that matter. I bet most will find it hard to defend their position.
I've seen so many people try and copy Eddie Vedder's voice. It's as if if you don't sound like him you're not a man. - Emmett Roslan
Remember, this is from the basis that a fetus is a living thing. Nevermind if it isnt!
I don't think it's a question of whether or not a fetus is a living thing. The question is, what sort of living thing is it? I think it's clearly alive, but so are monkeys and cows and grasshoppers and worms and dandelions and mold spores and cancer cells. To say that something is "alive" doesn't in and of itself grant it any particular status.
We treat various life forms differently primarily based on their consciousness and their ability to feel pain. A conscious being is aware that it exists and, at the moment of death, presumably will be aware of the loss of it's life. We pay attention to the ability to feel pain because most of us don't like to cause needless suffering. That's why we put our dogs to sleep in as gentle a way as possible, but rip the carrots right out of the ground and eat them. Both are alive, but we have no reason to believe that a carrot has any awareness of that, or that it suffers in being eaten.
Does a fetus in the first trimester have the ability to process pain, or a conscious awareness that it is alive? Given the brain and central nervous system development at that stage, there is no reason to believe that it does.
Many people will say that simply because a fetus is genetically human, we can't think of it in the same way as we do other forms of life, but I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion without religion. If god doesn't grant us that special status, what does?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Not exactly. Even if you justify a pro-life stance by saying that a fetus is a living being, you;re faced with the argument of whether it is your right to make the mother 'suffer' for 9 months, especially if she never intended to have a baby.
Like I said read Thomson's piece. She starts off with the presumption that the fetus IS a human.
Then she gives this analogy. You are kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers, and you have to lie in bed for 9 months with a tube connecting you to this genius musician who can only live if you make this sacrifice for 9 months. You and only you can do this; no other person can.
If you don't, this musician will die.
Now, should you be forced to sacrifice 9 months of your life to save his?
The situation becomes more complex when YOUR life is also put at risk whilst being forced to save this man's life.
Anyhow, forget that your life is ever at risk. Just think about the moral justification of forcing YOU to save another person's life. If you choose to lie in bed with a tube connecting you to this man to save him then its very generous of you. But does the Society of Music Lovers have any right whatsoever to FORCE you to do something you dont want to do in order to save him?
See these analogies. The SOciety of Music Lovers may feel that the musician is a HUGE asset to the association or even to society, but do they have any right to force their views upon you? I may think that all effort must be done to save the fetus and allow it to see the world and experience life as God intended him/her to. But do I have a right to force other people to do something they dont want to?
Al Qaeda may think America is full of shit and that they are morally corrupt. But do they have the right to come into your country and tell you how to behave? Bush may think (yeah right) that Iraqi society is backward and democracy is the best form of governance, but does he have the right to go in and change the whole system as he sees fit?
Basic right wing/left wing divide I suppose. Individual liberty vs State intervention
Thats why I think beynd religion you'll never be able to conclusively defend your pro life position; pro life meaning making abortion an illegal act. (THIS IS BY NO MEANS A PRO RELIGION POST IM ONLY TRYING TO BE OBJECTIVE)
Remember, this is from the basis that a fetus is a living thing. Nevermind if it isnt!
the premise of the analogy is wrong from the outset. the woman chose to engage in the act that got her pregnant. if you equate outlawing abortion to forcing her to save the life of another...so be it. being kidnapped and forced to save the life of another is not the same thing...
and religion has nothing to do with why i oppose abortion. i am not a practicing anything. i believe, scientifically speaking, that once the sperm and egg meet and there's electricity and cells begin to divide, that's life set on its course. nothing religious about it...
Allright allright if you wanna bollocks that argument without actually processing it with an open mind then go ahead. I never said atheists can never be pro life. Im saying its hard to justify it thats all.
Try putting those analogies to an atheist pro-lifer, or any pro-lifer for that matter. I bet most will find it hard to defend their position.
First of all, i will "bollocks the argument". Thank you very much. Point is you said "beyond religion" there is no anti-abortion argument, and that is bullshit, plain and simple.
Now, because you want to accuse me of not "processing" or being close-minded, i'll address the analogy. It should be pointed out, first of all, that i think abortion should be legal (just not for all the bullshit "choice" arguments people make). The analogy is weak. In 99.9999999 percent of instances, no one is kidnapped, forcibly impregnated and forced to lie in bed for nine months as in the absurdist musician analogy. The analogy immediately falls apart to the truly unbiased observer. its crap.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
the premise of the analogy is wrong from the outset. the woman chose to engage in the act that got her pregnant. if you equate outlawing abortion to forcing her to save the life of another...so be it. being kidnapped and forced to save the life of another is not the same thing...
and religion has nothing to do with why i oppose abortion. i am not a practicing anything. i believe, scientifically speaking, that once the sperm and egg meet and there's electricity and cells begin to divide, that's life set on its course. nothing religious about it...
You beat me to it, but, at least i have some confirmation.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
You're right, we're never going to agree or to change one another's minds. And yes, it is a matter of opinion on both sides. The best we can do under those circumstances is to allow each person to decide for themselves and live their lives accordingly. I'm perfectly willing to do that.
sure you are. because it allows for wanton destruction of innocent life. which in your viewpoint is just fine....
from my viewpoint, that's like saying that you don't believe in robbing banks but it's ok if i do it if i believe there's nothing wrong with it.
i believe we argue passionately about this topic because we want the other side to understand fully what we're saying, and that if they did, they would believe as we do.
i'm willing to accept all viewpoints, too, as long as the one that's law is mine
sure you are. because it allows for wanton destruction of innocent life. which in your viewpoint is just fine....
from my viewpoint, that's like saying that you don't believe in robbing banks but it's ok if i do it if i believe there's nothing wrong with it.
i believe we argue passionately about this topic because we want the other side to understand fully what we're saying, and that if they did, they would believe as we do.
i'm willing to accept all viewpoints, too, as long as the one that's law is mine
sure you are. because it allows for wanton destruction of innocent life. which in your viewpoint is just fine....
from my viewpoint, that's like saying that you don't believe in robbing banks but it's ok if i do it if i believe there's nothing wrong with it.
i believe we argue passionately about this topic because we want the other side to understand fully what we're saying, and that if they did, they would believe as we do.
i'm willing to accept all viewpoints, too, as long as the one that's law is mine
But you "destroy life" every day. If you didn't, you would die yourself. What, outside of religion, puts a pre-conscious human life above all other forms of life?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
They somehow feel they have to enforce their belief upon others, a bit like anti-smoke people.
I don't see where the problem is. Let people who feel they have to use abortion do it. Let people who want to smoke smoke.
To anti-choice people, I'd just say this.
A woman should be able to be free to do what she wants with her body. If two are having a baby, they shgould be the only one to be able to choose if it's the right time for everyone, including the future kid.
Anything that come on top of this is useless thinking.
i assume you oppose abortion in cases of rape then? otherwise, why is it ok to murder that baby but not others?
interesting. hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms before.
i think the difference would be in the choice contained in the actions that lead to the pregnancy. a woman who is impregnated during rape did not choose to engage in said activity, and not allowing her to abort in that case would in fact be controlling her reproductive freedom. it's forcing her to become pregnant in the first place, and then forcing her to suffer the consequences of someone else's actions, not her own.
becoming pregnant during consentual sex, even if pregnancy is not intended and birth control measures are employed, is part of the risk of engaging in the behavior. the risk is a known factor going in. birth control only reduces the risk, not eliminates it. this is where i think we're dealing with a personal responsiblity issue. there's a risk something unintended might happen. you don't intend to get herpes, but you might. and if you do? you'll have to deal with it. you can't just take a pill or stop by the doctor's office and have yourself absolved of the consequences of your actions. you can take measures to lessen the risk that you'll pass it on, but there's still a risk that you will. for example, you owe it to anyone else that you are exposing to this risk the right for them to decide whether or not they want that exposure by telling them what the risks are and letting them decide for themselves. if they know the risks, and still get herpes from you....that's something they've got to live with, right? they can't say "oh, wait. i got herpes. it's your fault, not mine, even though i accepted the risks." having an abortion after knowing the risks and engaging in the activity anyway is akin to blaming the fetus...
interesting. hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms before.
i think the difference would be in the choice contained in the actions that lead to the pregnancy. a woman who is impregnated during rape did not choose to engage in said activity, and not allowing her to abort in that case would in fact be controlling her reproductive freedom. it's forcing her to become pregnant in the first place, and then forcing her to suffer the consequences of someone else's actions, not her own.
becoming pregnant during consentual sex, even if pregnancy is not intended and birth control measures are employed, is part of the risk of engaging in the behavior. the risk is a known factor going in. birth control only reduces the risk, not eliminates it. this is where i think we're dealing with a personal responsiblity issue. there's a risk something unintended might happen. you don't intend to get herpes, but you might. and if you do? you'll have to deal with it. you can't just take a pill or stop by the doctor's office and have yourself absolved of the consequences of your actions. you can take measures to lessen the risk that you'll pass it on, but there's still a risk that you will. for example, you owe it to anyone else that you are exposing to this risk the right for them to decide whether or not they want that exposure by telling them what the risks are and letting them decide for themselves. if they know the risks, and still get herpes from you....that's something they've got to live with, right? they can't say "oh, wait. i got herpes. it's your fault, not mine, even though i accepted the risks." having an abortion after knowing the risks and engaging in the activity anyway is akin to blaming the fetus...
imho, of course.
But this doesn't answer the question. A child conceived by rape is still "human life." The conditions surrounding conception doesn't change that, does it?
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
interesting. hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms before.
i think the difference would be in the choice contained in the actions that lead to the pregnancy. a woman who is impregnated during rape did not choose to engage in said activity, and not allowing her to abort in that case would in fact be controlling her reproductive freedom. it's forcing her to become pregnant in the first place, and then forcing her to suffer the consequences of someone else's actions, not her own.
becoming pregnant during consentual sex, even if pregnancy is not intended and birth control measures are employed, is part of the risk of engaging in the behavior. the risk is a known factor going in. birth control only reduces the risk, not eliminates it. this is where i think we're dealing with a personal responsiblity issue. there's a risk something unintended might happen. you don't intend to get herpes, but you might. and if you do? you'll have to deal with it. you can't just take a pill or stop by the doctor's office and have yourself absolved of the consequences of your actions. you can take measures to lessen the risk that you'll pass it on, but there's still a risk that you will. for example, you owe it to anyone else that you are exposing to this risk the right for them to decide whether or not they want that exposure by telling them what the risks are and letting them decide for themselves. if they know the risks, and still get herpes from you....that's something they've got to live with, right? they can't say "oh, wait. i got herpes. it's your fault, not mine, even though i accepted the risks." having an abortion after knowing the risks and engaging in the activity anyway is akin to blaming the fetus...
imho, of course.
Wait a minute there! A minute ago this was all about "innocent life," and now all of a sudden we're back to talking about a woman's choices. If it's an innocent life, how could you possibly allow it to be murdered simply because it's father is a rapist? Should we kill all the children of rapists, or just the pre-born ones?
If this is about a woman's choices rather than the absolute sanctity of human life, then please explain where this complex moral code of yours came from, and why it should mean anything at all to anyone other than you.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
the premise of the analogy is wrong from the outset. the woman chose to engage in the act that got her pregnant. if you equate outlawing abortion to forcing her to save the life of another...so be it. being kidnapped and forced to save the life of another is not the same thing...
and religion has nothing to do with why i oppose abortion. i am not a practicing anything. i believe, scientifically speaking, that once the sperm and egg meet and there's electricity and cells begin to divide, that's life set on its course. nothing religious about it...
so u believe, that the only difference from Thomson's analogy is that the woman CHOSE to have sex and if she gets pregnant because of that then she has no choice but to 'save' that life by staying the course? Allright fair enough.
So what happens if it was rape?
What happens if when she conceived the fetus, she had a good life ahead of her, but 2 months into her pregnancy she discovers that she has a late stage cancer and only has 2 more years to live. She wishes to spend every minute of that life alone with her family without having the burden of the fetus. Was it still her 'choice' to get pregnant? Yes it was, but was it an informed choice?
What happens if she discovers 2 months into her pregancy that having the baby would likely shorten her life, and she is not willing to make that sacrifice. Was it an informed choice to have the baby?
What if, she had insisted that her partner used a condom, but it tore during sex and she has a baby now. It wasnt rape, but it certainly wasnt her choice to have the baby. What do u do with this woman?
Like soulsinging outlined, u cant have it both ways. If you argue from the premise of choice over chance, then please answer these scenarios I have put before u.
You see, its easy for u to say the woman had sex, she has to pay for it now. In a secularised society isnt that borderline sexist?
And u argue that scientifically when a sperm and an egg combine there is life, and thats not religious. I agree completely. But my argument is EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?
Religion says yes. Secularism and individual liberty says no. Thats my point.
I repeat, so u guys dont come out attacking me: even if there was a consensus that a fetus is a living being with FULL mental capacities, able to feel like u and i feel now, DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE CHOICE FOR THE MOTHER? thats the question.
and come on...do u actually think in your scientific mind that a fetus is capable of emotions comparable to what a fully grown person has?
In 99.9999999 percent of instances, no one is kidnapped, forcibly impregnated and forced to lie in bed for nine months as in the absurdist musician analogy. The analogy immediately falls apart to the truly unbiased observer. its crap.
sigh. firstly, i wasnt accusing u for no reason. You simply shot down my argument without backing yourself up. So it was a fair statement on my part, was it not?
secondly, have u ever actually read any social science books/journals? Of course almost nobody will get kidnapped and get forced to lie on a bed. But the PRINCIPLE of what the Society of Music Lovers did, is very similar to what a State will be doing if it outlaws abortion. It is FORCING a woman, the HOST of the child, to do something AGAINST her will in the name of saving another life, if we agree it is a life.
I've seen so many people try and copy Eddie Vedder's voice. It's as if if you don't sound like him you're not a man. - Emmett Roslan
But you "destroy life" every day. If you didn't, you would die yourself. What, outside of religion, puts a pre-conscious human life above all other forms of life?
i'm not religious. period. i may believe in some higher being, or at least something bigger than me, but i haven't been to church in decades. i don't subscribe to any particular religion. i think most religion is fukt, personally.
i guess it's kinda hard to explain why i think humans are above plants or lesser evolved animals. i'd have to say i guess it's because we are the life forms that have evolved into the life forms that have the most control over the environment in which we all live, the cognitive reasoning and communication and resourcefulness and industry needed to survive when other forms cannot.
i'm not religious. period. i may believe in some higher being, or at least something bigger than me, but i haven't been to church in decades. i don't subscribe to any particular religion. i think most religion is fukt, personally.
i guess it's kinda hard to explain why i think humans are above plants or lesser evolved animals. i'd have to say i guess it's because we are the life forms that have evolved into the life forms that have the most control over the environment in which we all live, the cognitive reasoning and communication and resourcefulness and industry needed to survive when other forms cannot.
A fetus possesses none of those qualities.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
If it's an innocent life, how could you possibly allow it to be murdered simply because it's father is a rapist? Should we kill all the children of rapists, or just the pre-born ones?
bingo!
I've seen so many people try and copy Eddie Vedder's voice. It's as if if you don't sound like him you're not a man. - Emmett Roslan
so u believe, that the only difference from Thomson's analogy is that the woman CHOSE to have sex and if she gets pregnant because of that then she has no choice but to 'save' that life by staying the course? Allright fair enough.
So what happens if it was rape?
What happens if when she conceived the fetus, she had a good life ahead of her, but 2 months into her pregnancy she discovers that she has a late stage cancer and only has 2 more years to live. She wishes to spend every minute of that life alone with her family without having the burden of the fetus. Was it still her 'choice' to get pregnant? Yes it was, but was it an informed choice?
What happens if she discovers 2 months into her pregancy that having the baby would likely shorten her life, and she is not willing to make that sacrifice. Was it an informed choice to have the baby?
What if, she had insisted that her partner used a condom, but it tore during sex and she has a baby now. It wasnt rape, but it certainly wasnt her choice to have the baby. What do u do with this woman?
Like soulsinging outlined, u cant have it both ways. If you argue from the premise of choice over chance, then please answer these scenarios I have put before u.
You see, its easy for u to say the woman had sex, she has to pay for it now. In a secularised society isnt that borderline sexist?
And u argue that scientifically when a sperm and an egg combine there is life, and thats not religious. I agree completely. But my argument is EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?
Religion says yes. Secularism and individual liberty says no. Thats my point.
I repeat, so u guys dont come out attacking me: even if there was a consensus that a fetus is a living being with FULL mental capacities, able to feel like u and i feel now, DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE CHOICE FOR THE MOTHER? thats the question.
and come on...do u actually think in your scientific mind that a fetus is capable of emotions comparable to what a fully grown person has?
i'm trying to answer some of this in other responses.
condom fails: accepted risk. no one thinks condoms are foolproof.
i didn't say if a woman has sex she has to "pay for it now". it's not about punishment, it's about accepting the consequences of your actions. pregnancy is a possible result of sexual activity. so is contrcting an std. you can lessen the chances, but never fully remove them.
you said:
"And u argue that scientifically when a sperm and an egg combine there is life, and thats not religious. I agree completely. But my argument is EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?"
i respond to that by saying that the fetus is not a woman's body. it is another being. you got to this thread late....some of this has already been covered here.
and i ask you this: if a woman chooses to engage in risky behavior, does she have a right to interfere with the fetus' choice if its own body? the fetus didn't choose to be inside of a woman who has little regard for its life. the fetus didn't choose to be inside a woman who chooses not to accept the responsiblities that come along with her choices in life.
you said:
"What happens if when she conceived the fetus, she had a good life ahead of her, but 2 months into her pregnancy she discovers that she has a late stage cancer and only has 2 more years to live. She wishes to spend every minute of that life alone with her family without having the burden of the fetus. Was it still her 'choice' to get pregnant? Yes it was, but was it an informed choice?"
in this scenario, getting an abortion would be for selfish reasons. nobody knows how much time they have left. a co-worker of mine was recently diagnosed with breast cancer only 4 months after having a baby. should she kill it now so she doesn't have to be burdened by it? or becuase she may not be around to raise it?
you said:
"What happens if she discovers 2 months into her pregancy that having the baby would likely shorten her life, and she is not willing to make that sacrifice. Was it an informed choice to have the baby?'
again, getting an abortion in this scenario would be for selfish reasons. dying during childbirth is a risk of pregnancy. pregnancy is a risk of having sex. accepting the risks of having sex includes accepting any results, and other issues that arise from those results.
you said:
"I repeat, so u guys dont come out attacking me: even if there was a consensus that a fetus is a living being with FULL mental capacities, able to feel like u and i feel now, DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE CHOICE FOR THE MOTHER? thats the question.
and come on...do u actually think in your scientific mind that a fetus is capable of emotions comparable to what a fully grown person has?"
and i repeat so you don't come out attacking me: does the mother have the right to make the choice for the fetus? why does a woman have the right to choose to end this particular life when she would not be granted the right to end the lives of others? especially when it was her actions that led to this other life being created in the first place?
i'll admit, as i said in another post, i hadn't thought of the rape angle in quite the terms presented. up until now, i would have said that i support abortions in some very few cases, including rape. maybe i should be against it even in that case, too? congratulations! you actually influenced my opinion! not in the direction you intended, though, eh?
so now you're going to flame me for forcing rape victims to have rape babies, right?
and come on...do u actually think in your scientific mind that a fetus is capable of emotions comparable to what a fully grown person has?
.
i try really hard nowadays to stay away from abortion threads. Then i read things similar to this. i have a seven year old son who is nowhere near capable of thoughts and emotions comparable to what a fully grown person has. Is it o.k. then, by your standards to kill him? i don't mean to be rude or crass, but you would have to agree thats a pretty silly argument.
BTW its also pretty silly, IMO to throw around the "what about rape card" when it such a miniscule percentage of abortions. The percentage is so small, it really doesn't even factor into the argument, IMO.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?
Religion says yes. Secularism and individual liberty says no. Thats my point.
.
I would have to say ... yeah. They do because it isn't just HER body anymore. That being said it would be stupid for the state to do that because she would probably do it anyway with a coathanger in her friends dirty garage. Now you have two dead people.
common sense says all this. Religion has nothing to do with it. Thats MY point.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
The foetus is unable to live on its own, therefor "parasiting" the mother.
The mother is responsible for the survival of the foetus, which is depending on her.
Still, it is HER right to dispose of her own body as she sees it fit.
No one should ever interfere with that.
If two people have sex, it's their choice.
If they use condoms, pills, if they like sodomy or the kama-sutra, it's their choice.
And if, for whatever reason, one wants to abort, it's their fucking choice, and not yours, or the gov's, or the pope.
i try really hard nowadays to stay away from abortion threads. Then i read things similar to this. i have a seven year old son who is nowhere near capable of thoughts and emotions comparable to what a fully grown person has. Is it o.k. then, by your standards to kill him? i don't mean to be rude or crass, but you would have to agree thats a pretty silly argument.
BTW its also pretty silly, IMO to throw around the "what about rape card" when it such a miniscule percentage of abortions. The percentage is so small, it really doesn't even factor into the argument, IMO.
i apologise if i touched a soft spot i had no idea about your child.
No, it would not be ok to kill him by my standards, because u have not understood my standards.
My 'standards' are that of a State following Islam, (and no Saudi Arabia is not Islamic in my opinion but nevermind we can wait for another for that debate) so its not really applicable here.
This is my argument, and from here you will see why your son's case is not relevant.
In the case of a liberal democracy like America where there are a significant amount of atheists and casual followers, and a seperation of Church and State, the State has no moral justification to force a woman to carry the child if she doesnt want to. Its her body, and its her right to choose. Maybe I wouldn really respect her as a person for aborting, but the idea here is that in a country where the principle of liberty exists noone should have any authority to force a person to do something against their will.
In your son's case, u no longer have to carry him INSIDE your body. Your responsibility as a mother is to raise him as you see fit. Note: He is not inside your body.
The bit you quoted me as saying wasnt the essence of my argument. You made a good point however. The mental capabilities of a fetus/child has little to do with this debate in my opinion, although your son can obviously feel pain whereas the fetus may not.
But in any case, I take thAT bit back.
The rape card as u call it, is still a significant aspect of this debate. We are arguing here about moral justifications. If you want to make a law on aborting you must consider ALL likely scenarios.And furthermore,its not actually the actual scenario of rape that im concerned with. Its the distinction between choice and chance. Are u willing to accept that if a woman is raped she can abort?
If so, will it be right for me to imply that the reason for the exception you allowed is because the woman didnt choose to engage in sex?
If the answer is yes, then will I be right to assume that you believe once a woman knowingly engages in sex (with/without protection) she waives ALL right to her body and accepts that she MUST carry a potential fetus?
are these two things the basis of your stance?
I've seen so many people try and copy Eddie Vedder's voice. It's as if if you don't sound like him you're not a man. - Emmett Roslan
I would have to say ... yeah. They do because it isn't just HER body anymore. That being said it would be stupid for the state to do that because she would probably do it anyway with a coathanger in her friends dirty garage. Now you have two dead people.
common sense says all this. Religion has nothing to do with it. Thats MY point.
so your grounds for supporting State intervention is because u believe once a woman engages in sex she is actually giving up her body to a potential child, even if she never wanted it to begin with?
I've seen so many people try and copy Eddie Vedder's voice. It's as if if you don't sound like him you're not a man. - Emmett Roslan
i'm trying to answer some of this in other responses.
condom fails: accepted risk. no one thinks condoms are foolproof.
i didn't say if a woman has sex she has to "pay for it now". it's not about punishment, it's about accepting the consequences of your actions. pregnancy is a possible result of sexual activity. so is contrcting an std. you can lessen the chances, but never fully remove them.
you said:
"And u argue that scientifically when a sperm and an egg combine there is life, and thats not religious. I agree completely. But my argument is EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?"
i respond to that by saying that the fetus is not a woman's body. it is another being. you got to this thread late....some of this has already been covered here.
and i ask you this: if a woman chooses to engage in risky behavior, does she have a right to interfere with the fetus' choice if its own body? the fetus didn't choose to be inside of a woman who has little regard for its life. the fetus didn't choose to be inside a woman who chooses not to accept the responsiblities that come along with her choices in life.
you said:
"What happens if when she conceived the fetus, she had a good life ahead of her, but 2 months into her pregnancy she discovers that she has a late stage cancer and only has 2 more years to live. She wishes to spend every minute of that life alone with her family without having the burden of the fetus. Was it still her 'choice' to get pregnant? Yes it was, but was it an informed choice?"
in this scenario, getting an abortion would be for selfish reasons. nobody knows how much time they have left. a co-worker of mine was recently diagnosed with breast cancer only 4 months after having a baby. should she kill it now so she doesn't have to be burdened by it? or becuase she may not be around to raise it?
you said:
"What happens if she discovers 2 months into her pregancy that having the baby would likely shorten her life, and she is not willing to make that sacrifice. Was it an informed choice to have the baby?'
again, getting an abortion in this scenario would be for selfish reasons. dying during childbirth is a risk of pregnancy. pregnancy is a risk of having sex. accepting the risks of having sex includes accepting any results, and other issues that arise from those results.
you said:
"I repeat, so u guys dont come out attacking me: even if there was a consensus that a fetus is a living being with FULL mental capacities, able to feel like u and i feel now, DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE CHOICE FOR THE MOTHER? thats the question.
and come on...do u actually think in your scientific mind that a fetus is capable of emotions comparable to what a fully grown person has?"
and i repeat so you don't come out attacking me: does the mother have the right to make the choice for the fetus? why does a woman have the right to choose to end this particular life when she would not be granted the right to end the lives of others? especially when it was her actions that led to this other life being created in the first place?
i'll admit, as i said in another post, i hadn't thought of the rape angle in quite the terms presented. up until now, i would have said that i support abortions in some very few cases, including rape. maybe i should be against it even in that case, too? congratulations! you actually influenced my opinion! not in the direction you intended, though, eh?
so now you're going to flame me for forcing rape victims to have rape babies, right?
haha. well i will say if i were a women and i got raped i dont think I have any moral DUTY to keep the child. I may wish to do so to save his life, but I never engaged in any sexual activity within my control, so I cant be forced to bare the consequences.
Look, I agree with most of the things u said. Like I stated before, I am against abortion in most cases. I may not respect women who abort. But my question which u havent answered is that does the State have a moral authority to outlaw abortion.
Thats all we disagree on really. The justification of someone else telling you what to do with ur body
So? give me a yes or no answer.
I've seen so many people try and copy Eddie Vedder's voice. It's as if if you don't sound like him you're not a man. - Emmett Roslan
i didn't say if a woman has sex she has to "pay for it now". it's not about punishment, it's about accepting the consequences of your actions. pregnancy is a possible result of sexual activity. so is contrcting an std. you can lessen the chances, but never fully remove them.
When you make a mistake, are you obligated to take no further action to mitigate the trouble caused by that mistake? If you screw up something at work that's going to hurt your company in some way, do you just sit around waiting for all hell to break loose, or do you explore options that might lessen the damage?
i respond to that by saying that the fetus is not a woman's body. it is another being. you got to this thread late....some of this has already been covered here.
and i ask you this: if a woman chooses to engage in risky behavior, does she have a right to interfere with the fetus' choice if its own body? the fetus didn't choose to be inside of a woman who has little regard for its life. the fetus didn't choose to be inside a woman who chooses not to accept the responsiblities that come along with her choices in life.
All people must deal with the consequences of their actions. Abortion is indeed one way of dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. If you think a woman should be prevented from doing that, I ask you to demonstrate why the needs of a pre-conscious being with no central nervous system should take precedence over the needs or desires of a fully developed, fully conscious human being.
in this scenario, getting an abortion would be for selfish reasons. nobody knows how much time they have left. a co-worker of mine was recently diagnosed with breast cancer only 4 months after having a baby. should she kill it now so she doesn't have to be burdened by it? or becuase she may not be around to raise it?
Again, you still haven't explained how and why a fetus at a primitive stage of development has rights equal to or exceeding it's mother's. A fetus is NOT the exact same thing as a baby, and you repeatedly saying it doesn't make it so.
again, getting an abortion in this scenario would be for selfish reasons. dying during childbirth is a risk of pregnancy. pregnancy is a risk of having sex. accepting the risks of having sex includes accepting any results, and other issues that arise from those results.
Selfish, huh? Self-defense is selfish now? Opening your front door entails the risk that the person on the other side might kill you. Once the door is open, are you obligated to let them do it, or can you defend yourself?
and i repeat so you don't come out attacking me: does the mother have the right to make the choice for the fetus? why does a woman have the right to choose to end this particular life when she would not be granted the right to end the lives of others? especially when it was her actions that led to this other life being created in the first place?
Because a woman has a right to decide what to do with her body, and her rights don't suddenly evaporate in a puff of smoke when an egg meets a sperm. As to why she can't end the lives of others, please see my post a page or two back.
i'll admit, as i said in another post, i hadn't thought of the rape angle in quite the terms presented. up until now, i would have said that i support abortions in some very few cases, including rape. maybe i should be against it even in that case, too? congratulations! you actually influenced my opinion! not in the direction you intended, though, eh?
so now you're going to flame me for forcing rape victims to have rape babies, right?
Quite the contrary. I still disagree with you, but at least your position has become more consistent. Now all that's left for you to do is to explain why an entity that is not even aware that it exists and can feel no pain should be spared at the expense of a breathing, thinking, feeling woman in a great deal of physical and emotional pain, and why you are the one who should make that decision.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
the premise of the analogy is wrong from the outset. the woman chose to engage in the act that got her pregnant. if you equate outlawing abortion to forcing her to save the life of another...so be it. being kidnapped and forced to save the life of another is not the same thing...
and religion has nothing to do with why i oppose abortion. i am not a practicing anything. i believe, scientifically speaking, that once the sperm and egg meet and there's electricity and cells begin to divide, that's life set on its course. nothing religious about it...
suppose you hit said musician with your car, and thus bear responsibility for his injury. should you then be forced to do it, just becos you are responsible for it?
so your grounds for supporting State intervention is because u believe once a woman engages in sex she is actually giving up her body to a potential child, even if she never wanted it to begin with?
YOU laid out the fucking criteria! YOU said: "EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?"
LIVING BEING WITH FEELINGS, EMOTIONS AND WHATNOT. Those are the criteria YOU provided. Now you come back with some "potential child" bullshit.
Abortion debates are fucking stupid!
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
suppose you hit said musician with your car, and thus bear responsibility for his injury. should you then be forced to do it, just becos you are responsible for it?
Am i ticketed for being at fault, because, if so, i gotta say... yeah.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Comments
Bollocks. None of this metaphorical, anecdotal stuff changes anything. You still have to deal with the fact that A LOT of vehemently non-religious folks are adamantly opposed to abortion. Obviously "beyond religion".
Allright allright if you wanna bollocks that argument without actually processing it with an open mind then go ahead. I never said atheists can never be pro life. Im saying its hard to justify it thats all.
Try putting those analogies to an atheist pro-lifer, or any pro-lifer for that matter. I bet most will find it hard to defend their position.
http://theshahril.blogspot.com
London 20/04/2006
We treat various life forms differently primarily based on their consciousness and their ability to feel pain. A conscious being is aware that it exists and, at the moment of death, presumably will be aware of the loss of it's life. We pay attention to the ability to feel pain because most of us don't like to cause needless suffering. That's why we put our dogs to sleep in as gentle a way as possible, but rip the carrots right out of the ground and eat them. Both are alive, but we have no reason to believe that a carrot has any awareness of that, or that it suffers in being eaten.
Does a fetus in the first trimester have the ability to process pain, or a conscious awareness that it is alive? Given the brain and central nervous system development at that stage, there is no reason to believe that it does.
Many people will say that simply because a fetus is genetically human, we can't think of it in the same way as we do other forms of life, but I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion without religion. If god doesn't grant us that special status, what does?
the premise of the analogy is wrong from the outset. the woman chose to engage in the act that got her pregnant. if you equate outlawing abortion to forcing her to save the life of another...so be it. being kidnapped and forced to save the life of another is not the same thing...
and religion has nothing to do with why i oppose abortion. i am not a practicing anything. i believe, scientifically speaking, that once the sperm and egg meet and there's electricity and cells begin to divide, that's life set on its course. nothing religious about it...
ebay isn't evil people are
The South is Much Obliged
First of all, i will "bollocks the argument". Thank you very much. Point is you said "beyond religion" there is no anti-abortion argument, and that is bullshit, plain and simple.
Now, because you want to accuse me of not "processing" or being close-minded, i'll address the analogy. It should be pointed out, first of all, that i think abortion should be legal (just not for all the bullshit "choice" arguments people make). The analogy is weak. In 99.9999999 percent of instances, no one is kidnapped, forcibly impregnated and forced to lie in bed for nine months as in the absurdist musician analogy. The analogy immediately falls apart to the truly unbiased observer. its crap.
You beat me to it, but, at least i have some confirmation.
sure you are. because it allows for wanton destruction of innocent life. which in your viewpoint is just fine....
from my viewpoint, that's like saying that you don't believe in robbing banks but it's ok if i do it if i believe there's nothing wrong with it.
i believe we argue passionately about this topic because we want the other side to understand fully what we're saying, and that if they did, they would believe as we do.
i'm willing to accept all viewpoints, too, as long as the one that's law is mine
ebay isn't evil people are
The South is Much Obliged
http://www.mlive.com/news/bctimes/index.ssf?/base/news-8/116170304311310.xml&coll=4
They somehow feel they have to enforce their belief upon others, a bit like anti-smoke people.
I don't see where the problem is. Let people who feel they have to use abortion do it. Let people who want to smoke smoke.
To anti-choice people, I'd just say this.
A woman should be able to be free to do what she wants with her body. If two are having a baby, they shgould be the only one to be able to choose if it's the right time for everyone, including the future kid.
Anything that come on top of this is useless thinking.
interesting. hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms before.
i think the difference would be in the choice contained in the actions that lead to the pregnancy. a woman who is impregnated during rape did not choose to engage in said activity, and not allowing her to abort in that case would in fact be controlling her reproductive freedom. it's forcing her to become pregnant in the first place, and then forcing her to suffer the consequences of someone else's actions, not her own.
becoming pregnant during consentual sex, even if pregnancy is not intended and birth control measures are employed, is part of the risk of engaging in the behavior. the risk is a known factor going in. birth control only reduces the risk, not eliminates it. this is where i think we're dealing with a personal responsiblity issue. there's a risk something unintended might happen. you don't intend to get herpes, but you might. and if you do? you'll have to deal with it. you can't just take a pill or stop by the doctor's office and have yourself absolved of the consequences of your actions. you can take measures to lessen the risk that you'll pass it on, but there's still a risk that you will. for example, you owe it to anyone else that you are exposing to this risk the right for them to decide whether or not they want that exposure by telling them what the risks are and letting them decide for themselves. if they know the risks, and still get herpes from you....that's something they've got to live with, right? they can't say "oh, wait. i got herpes. it's your fault, not mine, even though i accepted the risks." having an abortion after knowing the risks and engaging in the activity anyway is akin to blaming the fetus...
imho, of course.
ebay isn't evil people are
The South is Much Obliged
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
If this is about a woman's choices rather than the absolute sanctity of human life, then please explain where this complex moral code of yours came from, and why it should mean anything at all to anyone other than you.
so u believe, that the only difference from Thomson's analogy is that the woman CHOSE to have sex and if she gets pregnant because of that then she has no choice but to 'save' that life by staying the course? Allright fair enough.
So what happens if it was rape?
What happens if when she conceived the fetus, she had a good life ahead of her, but 2 months into her pregnancy she discovers that she has a late stage cancer and only has 2 more years to live. She wishes to spend every minute of that life alone with her family without having the burden of the fetus. Was it still her 'choice' to get pregnant? Yes it was, but was it an informed choice?
What happens if she discovers 2 months into her pregancy that having the baby would likely shorten her life, and she is not willing to make that sacrifice. Was it an informed choice to have the baby?
What if, she had insisted that her partner used a condom, but it tore during sex and she has a baby now. It wasnt rape, but it certainly wasnt her choice to have the baby. What do u do with this woman?
Like soulsinging outlined, u cant have it both ways. If you argue from the premise of choice over chance, then please answer these scenarios I have put before u.
You see, its easy for u to say the woman had sex, she has to pay for it now. In a secularised society isnt that borderline sexist?
And u argue that scientifically when a sperm and an egg combine there is life, and thats not religious. I agree completely. But my argument is EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?
Religion says yes. Secularism and individual liberty says no. Thats my point.
I repeat, so u guys dont come out attacking me: even if there was a consensus that a fetus is a living being with FULL mental capacities, able to feel like u and i feel now, DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE CHOICE FOR THE MOTHER? thats the question.
and come on...do u actually think in your scientific mind that a fetus is capable of emotions comparable to what a fully grown person has?
sigh. firstly, i wasnt accusing u for no reason. You simply shot down my argument without backing yourself up. So it was a fair statement on my part, was it not?
secondly, have u ever actually read any social science books/journals? Of course almost nobody will get kidnapped and get forced to lie on a bed. But the PRINCIPLE of what the Society of Music Lovers did, is very similar to what a State will be doing if it outlaws abortion. It is FORCING a woman, the HOST of the child, to do something AGAINST her will in the name of saving another life, if we agree it is a life.
http://theshahril.blogspot.com
London 20/04/2006
i'm not religious. period. i may believe in some higher being, or at least something bigger than me, but i haven't been to church in decades. i don't subscribe to any particular religion. i think most religion is fukt, personally.
i guess it's kinda hard to explain why i think humans are above plants or lesser evolved animals. i'd have to say i guess it's because we are the life forms that have evolved into the life forms that have the most control over the environment in which we all live, the cognitive reasoning and communication and resourcefulness and industry needed to survive when other forms cannot.
ebay isn't evil people are
The South is Much Obliged
http://theshahril.blogspot.com
London 20/04/2006
i'm trying to answer some of this in other responses.
condom fails: accepted risk. no one thinks condoms are foolproof.
i didn't say if a woman has sex she has to "pay for it now". it's not about punishment, it's about accepting the consequences of your actions. pregnancy is a possible result of sexual activity. so is contrcting an std. you can lessen the chances, but never fully remove them.
you said:
"And u argue that scientifically when a sperm and an egg combine there is life, and thats not religious. I agree completely. But my argument is EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?"
i respond to that by saying that the fetus is not a woman's body. it is another being. you got to this thread late....some of this has already been covered here.
and i ask you this: if a woman chooses to engage in risky behavior, does she have a right to interfere with the fetus' choice if its own body? the fetus didn't choose to be inside of a woman who has little regard for its life. the fetus didn't choose to be inside a woman who chooses not to accept the responsiblities that come along with her choices in life.
you said:
"What happens if when she conceived the fetus, she had a good life ahead of her, but 2 months into her pregnancy she discovers that she has a late stage cancer and only has 2 more years to live. She wishes to spend every minute of that life alone with her family without having the burden of the fetus. Was it still her 'choice' to get pregnant? Yes it was, but was it an informed choice?"
in this scenario, getting an abortion would be for selfish reasons. nobody knows how much time they have left. a co-worker of mine was recently diagnosed with breast cancer only 4 months after having a baby. should she kill it now so she doesn't have to be burdened by it? or becuase she may not be around to raise it?
you said:
"What happens if she discovers 2 months into her pregancy that having the baby would likely shorten her life, and she is not willing to make that sacrifice. Was it an informed choice to have the baby?'
again, getting an abortion in this scenario would be for selfish reasons. dying during childbirth is a risk of pregnancy. pregnancy is a risk of having sex. accepting the risks of having sex includes accepting any results, and other issues that arise from those results.
you said:
"I repeat, so u guys dont come out attacking me: even if there was a consensus that a fetus is a living being with FULL mental capacities, able to feel like u and i feel now, DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE CHOICE FOR THE MOTHER? thats the question.
and come on...do u actually think in your scientific mind that a fetus is capable of emotions comparable to what a fully grown person has?"
and i repeat so you don't come out attacking me: does the mother have the right to make the choice for the fetus? why does a woman have the right to choose to end this particular life when she would not be granted the right to end the lives of others? especially when it was her actions that led to this other life being created in the first place?
i'll admit, as i said in another post, i hadn't thought of the rape angle in quite the terms presented. up until now, i would have said that i support abortions in some very few cases, including rape. maybe i should be against it even in that case, too? congratulations! you actually influenced my opinion! not in the direction you intended, though, eh?
so now you're going to flame me for forcing rape victims to have rape babies, right?
ebay isn't evil people are
The South is Much Obliged
i try really hard nowadays to stay away from abortion threads. Then i read things similar to this. i have a seven year old son who is nowhere near capable of thoughts and emotions comparable to what a fully grown person has. Is it o.k. then, by your standards to kill him? i don't mean to be rude or crass, but you would have to agree thats a pretty silly argument.
BTW its also pretty silly, IMO to throw around the "what about rape card" when it such a miniscule percentage of abortions. The percentage is so small, it really doesn't even factor into the argument, IMO.
it most likely will if you don't kill it
ebay isn't evil people are
The South is Much Obliged
I would have to say ... yeah. They do because it isn't just HER body anymore. That being said it would be stupid for the state to do that because she would probably do it anyway with a coathanger in her friends dirty garage. Now you have two dead people.
common sense says all this. Religion has nothing to do with it. Thats MY point.
Well technically, yes, it is and remain her body.
The foetus is unable to live on its own, therefor "parasiting" the mother.
The mother is responsible for the survival of the foetus, which is depending on her.
Still, it is HER right to dispose of her own body as she sees it fit.
No one should ever interfere with that.
If two people have sex, it's their choice.
If they use condoms, pills, if they like sodomy or the kama-sutra, it's their choice.
And if, for whatever reason, one wants to abort, it's their fucking choice, and not yours, or the gov's, or the pope.
i apologise if i touched a soft spot i had no idea about your child.
No, it would not be ok to kill him by my standards, because u have not understood my standards.
My 'standards' are that of a State following Islam, (and no Saudi Arabia is not Islamic in my opinion but nevermind we can wait for another for that debate) so its not really applicable here.
This is my argument, and from here you will see why your son's case is not relevant.
In the case of a liberal democracy like America where there are a significant amount of atheists and casual followers, and a seperation of Church and State, the State has no moral justification to force a woman to carry the child if she doesnt want to. Its her body, and its her right to choose. Maybe I wouldn really respect her as a person for aborting, but the idea here is that in a country where the principle of liberty exists noone should have any authority to force a person to do something against their will.
In your son's case, u no longer have to carry him INSIDE your body. Your responsibility as a mother is to raise him as you see fit. Note: He is not inside your body.
The bit you quoted me as saying wasnt the essence of my argument. You made a good point however. The mental capabilities of a fetus/child has little to do with this debate in my opinion, although your son can obviously feel pain whereas the fetus may not.
But in any case, I take thAT bit back.
The rape card as u call it, is still a significant aspect of this debate. We are arguing here about moral justifications. If you want to make a law on aborting you must consider ALL likely scenarios.And furthermore,its not actually the actual scenario of rape that im concerned with. Its the distinction between choice and chance. Are u willing to accept that if a woman is raped she can abort?
If so, will it be right for me to imply that the reason for the exception you allowed is because the woman didnt choose to engage in sex?
If the answer is yes, then will I be right to assume that you believe once a woman knowingly engages in sex (with/without protection) she waives ALL right to her body and accepts that she MUST carry a potential fetus?
are these two things the basis of your stance?
http://theshahril.blogspot.com
London 20/04/2006
so your grounds for supporting State intervention is because u believe once a woman engages in sex she is actually giving up her body to a potential child, even if she never wanted it to begin with?
http://theshahril.blogspot.com
London 20/04/2006
haha. well i will say if i were a women and i got raped i dont think I have any moral DUTY to keep the child. I may wish to do so to save his life, but I never engaged in any sexual activity within my control, so I cant be forced to bare the consequences.
Look, I agree with most of the things u said. Like I stated before, I am against abortion in most cases. I may not respect women who abort. But my question which u havent answered is that does the State have a moral authority to outlaw abortion.
Thats all we disagree on really. The justification of someone else telling you what to do with ur body
So? give me a yes or no answer.
http://theshahril.blogspot.com
London 20/04/2006
All people must deal with the consequences of their actions. Abortion is indeed one way of dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. If you think a woman should be prevented from doing that, I ask you to demonstrate why the needs of a pre-conscious being with no central nervous system should take precedence over the needs or desires of a fully developed, fully conscious human being.
Again, you still haven't explained how and why a fetus at a primitive stage of development has rights equal to or exceeding it's mother's. A fetus is NOT the exact same thing as a baby, and you repeatedly saying it doesn't make it so.
Selfish, huh? Self-defense is selfish now? Opening your front door entails the risk that the person on the other side might kill you. Once the door is open, are you obligated to let them do it, or can you defend yourself?
Because a woman has a right to decide what to do with her body, and her rights don't suddenly evaporate in a puff of smoke when an egg meets a sperm. As to why she can't end the lives of others, please see my post a page or two back.
Quite the contrary. I still disagree with you, but at least your position has become more consistent. Now all that's left for you to do is to explain why an entity that is not even aware that it exists and can feel no pain should be spared at the expense of a breathing, thinking, feeling woman in a great deal of physical and emotional pain, and why you are the one who should make that decision.
suppose you hit said musician with your car, and thus bear responsibility for his injury. should you then be forced to do it, just becos you are responsible for it?
YOU laid out the fucking criteria! YOU said: "EVEN if one day science can conclusively prove that a fetus is living being with feelings, emotions, and whatnot, the question still stands unanswered. DOES THE STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN A WOMAN'S CHOICE OF HER OWN BODY?"
LIVING BEING WITH FEELINGS, EMOTIONS AND WHATNOT. Those are the criteria YOU provided. Now you come back with some "potential child" bullshit.
Abortion debates are fucking stupid!
Am i ticketed for being at fault, because, if so, i gotta say... yeah.