Should Keeping Abortions legal be left up to the States?

1234689

Comments

  • Yoyoyo
    Yoyoyo Posts: 310
    farfromglorified wrote:
    A fetus has no distinct rights as an individual because it has no distinct existence as an individual being. It is a part of its mother and as such is simply party to the rights she has. The mother owns those rights and owns that life, as she alone sustains them.

    "To recognize individual rights means to recognize and accept the conditions required by man's nature for his proper survival."

    One condition being birth. Whether or not the fetus is an individual or not, unless the mother's right to proper survival is threatened the baby shall be born.
    No need to be void, or save up on life

    You got to spend it all
  • Anon
    Anon Posts: 11,175
    farfromglorified wrote:
    an adult dependent on machines is a different situation. A machine itself has no rights, has no life, cannot own anything and is a completely distinct object from the person attached to it. The human being held alive by machines still maintains his or her rights and should certainly be considered part of any existing social compacts. However, that person does not somehow gain new rights as part of their state. He has no right to enslave the doctors or family members providing those machines. So, as I stated, those people are free to let the man die. If they wish to disconnect him from those machines (assuming the absence of an agreement to do otherwise), they may certainly do so.
    There's a case in Australia that was reported yesterday, where the Court ruled in favor of a hospital, who were seeking permission to turn off Paulo Melo's life support system against his familys wishes. He had been injured two weeks ago in a Motor Vehicle Accident. The hospital did turn off his life support system. He breathed for a while, but he has now passed away.

    So i guess the Courts in Australia agree with you. According to them, he has no right to 'enslave the doctors providing these machines'. (your words).

    An Australian car accident victim died Thursday after his family lost a legal battle to keep him on life support in a hospital, an official said.

    Paulo Melo, 29, from Darwin on Australia's north coast, slipped into a coma after suffering brain and spinal injuries in a Dec. 5 accident.

    His family gained a temporary injunction in the Northern Territory Supreme Court on Tuesday preventing the Royal Darwin Hospital from switching off his life support system, which had kept him alive.

    But a judge lifted the injunction Wednesday, describing the patient's medical condition as futile


    http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/20/asia/AS-GEN-Australia-Life-Support.php
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Mestophar wrote:
    "To recognize individual rights means to recognize and accept the conditions required by man's nature for his proper survival."

    One condition being birth. Whether or not the fetus is an individual or not, unless the mother's right to proper survival is threatened the baby shall be born.

    Hehe...I'd highly advise you not to quote pro-abortion philosophers in support of anti-abortion stances. Rand was staunchly pro-choice.

    You are implying, in your inferrence, that a fetus, or anything else, has a right to survival. No such right exists, obviously. All of us, at some point, will cease to survive. Furthermore, each of us has the right to own our own bodies -- that is a primary axiom of Objectivism. To suggest that a fetus has a "right to survive" at the expense of another (as all fetuses do) is to suggest that a fetus owns rights that a mother does not.

    The base nature of a fetus is an existence of dependence. And it is entirely up to the mother whether or not to allow the fetus to occupy and use her body.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Pj_Gurl wrote:
    There's a case in Australia that was reported yesterday, where the Court ruled in favor of a hospital, who were seeking permission to turn off Paulo Melo's life support system against his familys wishes. He had been injured two weeks ago in a Motor Vehicle Accident. The hospital did turn off his life support system. He breathed for a while, but he has now passed away.

    So i guess the Courts in Australia agree with you. According to them, he has no right to 'enslave the doctors providing these machines'. (your words).

    An Australian car accident victim died Thursday after his family lost a legal battle to keep him on life support in a hospital, an official said.

    Paulo Melo, 29, from Darwin on Australia's north coast, slipped into a coma after suffering brain and spinal injuries in a Dec. 5 accident.

    His family gained a temporary injunction in the Northern Territory Supreme Court on Tuesday preventing the Royal Darwin Hospital from switching off his life support system, which had kept him alive.

    But a judge lifted the injunction Wednesday, describing the patient's medical condition as futile


    http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/20/asia/AS-GEN-Australia-Life-Support.php

    It sounds like the court does not completely agree with me. It sounds like the court only believes slavery is wrong if a "patient's medical condition [is] futile".
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    macgyver06 wrote:
    I dont think so.

    yes; some states have a majority of people with higher morals. they can forbid it. if someone lives in one of those states and wants an abortion; they can travel to a state that allows them. i'd predict the states that have banned the death penalty will be states that'll allow abortions. based on comments here; those who feel it's wrong to kill murderers; have no problem killing an innocent child.
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    onelongsong wrote:
    yes; some states have a majority of people with higher morals. they can forbid it. if someone lives in one of those states and wants an abortion; they can travel to a state that allows them. i'd predict the states that have banned the death penalty will be states that'll allow abortions. based on comments here; those who feel it's wrong to kill murderers; have no problem killing an innocent child.

    Well obviously. In states banning abortions but keeping the death penalty I guess you would get executed for having an abortion! So those having both would have a serious paradox to settle :)

    I don't think anyone feels its right to kill an innocent child. And I find it funny that the only arguments coming out of pro death penalty-ers are all emotion based. I have yet to hear a sound, logical argument not all emotionnaly mixed up in favor of the death penalty.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    onelongsong wrote:
    yes; some states have a majority of people with higher morals. they can forbid it. if someone lives in one of those states and wants an abortion; they can travel to a state that allows them. i'd predict the states that have banned the death penalty will be states that'll allow abortions. based on comments here; those who feel it's wrong to kill murderers; have no problem killing an innocent child.

    The problem with your arguement, as I see it, is that it is not a child. It is a fetus and until that fetus has developed enough to live outside of the womb, even if temporary life support measures are required to assist it, it is not a viable life form.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • MCG
    MCG Posts: 780
    macgyver06 wrote:
    I dont think so.

    Really?

    If states have the power to decide whether the death penalty can be administered I see no reason why the abortion decision isn't also theirs.
    Which came first,
    the bad idea or me befallen by it?
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    onelongsong wrote:
    yes; some states have a majority of people with higher morals. they can forbid it. if someone lives in one of those states and wants an abortion; they can travel to a state that allows them. i'd predict the states that have banned the death penalty will be states that'll allow abortions. based on comments here; those who feel it's wrong to kill murderers; have no problem killing an innocent child.


    insane and uneducated. congratulations.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    Note: The Title of this thread says nothing about the death penalty..
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    onelongsong wrote:
    yes; some states have a majority of people with higher morals. they can forbid it. if someone lives in one of those states and wants an abortion; they can travel to a state that allows them. i'd predict the states that have banned the death penalty will be states that'll allow abortions. based on comments here; those who feel it's wrong to kill murderers; have no problem killing an innocent child.

    keeping abortions legal keeps children from getting thrown in garbage cans and stabbed.. are you aware of this??
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    macgyver06 wrote:
    insane and uneducated. congratulations.
    macgyver06 wrote:
    keeping abortions legal keeps children from getting thrown in garbage cans and stabbed.. are you aware of this??

    Hmmm....
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hmmm....


    hmm what...something to say... or are you looking up something
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    macgyver06 wrote:
    hmm what...something to say... or are you looking up something

    I'm trying to consider what went through your mind when you made that second post.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    and to the poor bastards who think the death penalty is somehow related to abortion (beyond me how this works) why not make slavery up the states?? so thos people with these god damned high morals can choose for themselves... and if the slaves dont like it..they can run to another state


    hows that for a ridiculous comparison
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    macgyver06 wrote:
    why not make slavery up the states??

    Because there's a constitutional amendment to end slavery that was voted on by the states. See how that works?
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    macgyver06 wrote:
    keeping abortions legal keeps children from getting thrown in garbage cans and stabbed.. are you aware of this??

    And keeping drugs illegal keeps kids from being raped by crack heads.

    What's your point?

    Just because a policy has real benefits, doesn't necesarily make it GOOD policy.

    Cutting the interest rate to 0 would make the markets skyrocket too.

    Snorting cocaine helps me stay awake.

    ???
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I'm trying to consider what went through your mind when you made that second post.


    you dont agree with me that people who feel pressured and outcasts throw their newborn babies away sometimes?
  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Because there's a constitutional amendment to end slavery that was voted on by the states. See how that works?

    No.
    can you explain that again?
    So if the state representatives all get togeather to ammend the constitution, they can overule the states?

    I thought you just let the courts make policy?
    Isn't that what they are there for?
    :rolleyes:
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Because there's a constitutional amendment to end slavery that was voted on by the states. See how that works?

    you just learn this on sesame street...im sorry i missed the part on the board...that said..write in random things you know thats common knowledge...do you feel smarter now?

Categories