Abortion and Morality

[Coyote]

Actually, there is hard evidence for the FACT of birth control pills being abortificents. Your whole executed innocent line of reasoning is theoretical.

Not at all. There has been (that I can find) no proven case that the pill has caused an abortion. It is theoretically possible - maybe even probable. But still theoretical.

Innocent's being executed may not be so theoretical. This case is likely not unique. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3472872.html

 

[Coyote]

I see. You certainly want to retain your right to due process, but have no problem denying due process to "them". I have understood your position from the very beginning but it is nice of you to finally articulate it so clearly.

When it comes to rape, I look at it very very simply. No other human being has the right to take my body and use it against my will. There is no law that allows this. There is no other group of human beings who are forced to accept this against their will. What sort of "due process" would I get? Why does another human have more rights to my body then I do? Why is one group of humans singled out?

 

[r0beph]

Actually, there is hard evidence for the FACT of birth control pills being abortificents. Your whole executed innocent line of reasoning is theoretical.

Yeah while we're at it lets ban female hormones altogether, we'll get Pfizer to mass produce estrogen and progesterone blockers on the double! Can't have hormones normally found in a woman's body stopping their reproduction!

 

[palerider]

When it comes to rape, I look at it very very simply. No other human being has the right to take my body and use it against my will. There is no law that allows this. There is no other group of human beings who are forced to accept this against their will. What sort of "due process" would I get? Why does another human have more rights to my body then I do? Why is one group of humans singled out?

THere is no other human that can be put into a position of such dependence upon a single individual.

And as to why a particular group is singled out, refer to history. There has always been a "good" reason to single out any group that is to be denied any sort of human right.

I am still waiting for you to make a case for killing the child. So far, we have emotional appeals to the mother's situation, but you haven't made a case for killing the child and it is my bet that you will not be able to. I imagine that the language required, and the ideas that will have to be expressed will be so distasteful to you, that you will find that you simply can't put the argument down for the public record. Instead, you will keep diverting the conversation away from the one who is to be killed to the one who gets to continue living her one life.

 

[palerider]

Yeah while we're at it lets ban female hormones altogether, we'll get Pfizer to mass produce estrogen and progesterone blockers on the double! Can't have hormones normally found in a woman's body stopping their reproduction!

Do you have an argument to the fact that birth control pills as we know them today are abortificient or not? Perhaps in your little corner of the world, impotent sarcasm is a suitable substitute for actual argument, but not in mine.

 

[palerider]

Not at all. There has been (that I can find) no proven case that the pill has caused an abortion. It is theoretically possible - maybe even probable. But still theoretical.

There is nothing theoretical about it at all coyote. If a woman who is taking the pill is still experiencing a menstral cycle, she is still ovulating. If she is still ovulating, then eggs are present which can be fertilized. Of course we have already been through this before and it is somewhat dissappointing that you continue to repeat a lie when it has been proven to be a lie.

The claims that suggest that BCP's are not abortificient are based on the erouneuos and outdated idea that a woman is not pregnant until implantation occurs. The truth, coyote is that BCP's cause the deaths of somewhere between 1.3 and 1.8 million living human beings per year because they are unable to implant in the uterus.

The known failure rate of BCP's in which the woman actually has a child is 3 to 5 per 100 woman year. Considering that over 10 million women are presently taking the pill, the suggestion that it is only theoretical that embryos die due to the pill is, at best, disingenuous. Here are some figures for you to consider before you make the "claim" that birth control pills are not abortificient again:

Contraceptive Rate of Ovulation ----- % Breakthrough Pregnancy
Combined Pill Up to 5% ..... 0.1 ****
Progestogen-only Pill 40-60% ..... 0.3
Intra-uterine Device Up to 100% ....... 0.6
Norplant Implants 10-50% ** ....... 0.09
Depo-Provera Injection 1% *** ........ 0.3

** Rising with each consecutive year of use.
*** Derived from 0.3-0.7 % breakthrough pregnancies per year.
**** Figures for first year of use, for perfect usage

 

[Coyote]

THere is no other human that can be put into a position of such dependence upon a single individual.

And there is no other human that can be put in a position of having her body forceably taken and used against her will, and possibly even to the point of taking her life.

And as to why a particular group is singled out, refer to history. There has always been a "good" reason to single out any group that is to be denied any sort of human right.

So it's ok to single out pregnant women?

I am still waiting for you to make a case for killing the child. So far, we have emotional appeals to the mother's situation, but you haven't made a case for killing the child and it is my bet that you will not be able to. I imagine that the language required, and the ideas that will have to be expressed will be so distasteful to you, that you will find that you simply can't put the argument down for the public record. Instead, you will keep diverting the conversation away from the one who is to be killed to the one who gets to continue living her one life.

My case is simple. No one has a right to force a woman to bear a child through force and against her will. To do so makes us no better then animals.

The child has done nothing wrong.
The mother has done nothing wrong.
You have a powerful and basic conflict of rights.
I disagree that the right to life trumps all others because it is evident in law that it does not. There are exceptions.

If the mother had gotten pregnant through carelessness or any other reason then rape (and incest is typically rape) and her life was not in danger, then I would say her rights do not supercede the childs.

But if a woman is made pregnant through a criminal act of force - she has a right to end that life inside her if that is what she wants.

You've asked how I would defend it in a court case. If the fetus and the mother were in a courtroom how would it play out? What precedent is there for what could amount to slavery on one side (the forceable usurption of another human's body, even risking death) to what would amount to murder on the other side (aborting the fetus)? There are no precedents and no real body of law that covers two UNIQUE groups of human beings: one that depends on the other for survival and the other that can be forced against her will to carry, pay the consequences for, and lose her life for entirely against her will?

You repeatedly mention seperating out groups of humans to be denied rights. In this case though - you have to. There is no other group of humans even remotely like these two in terms of dependence and vulnerablility and rights. Both are potentially dehumanized to objects: one a mass of cells with potential the other, a breeding machine who's rights are removed by an act of forced pregnancy.

 

[Coyote]

There is nothing theoretical about it at all coyote. If a woman who is taking the pill is still experiencing a menstral cycle, she is still ovulating. If she is still ovulating, then eggs are present which can be fertilized. Of course we have already been through this before and it is somewhat dissappointing that you continue to repeat a lie when it has been proven to be a lie.

It's theoretical because she MAY become pregant - but you don't know that she did become pregnant.

That is why I am saying it's equivelent to the death penalty because an innocent person MAY be executed and the evidence, while not certain suggests that is the case.

The two are not really all that different except it seems to bother you more that an innocent unborn human maybe killed then an innocent born human.

 

[Coyote]

I asked how and you had no answer.

I would make life in prison without parole mean life in prison without parole with no exceptions except if a criminal is exonerated.

Sure it's not 100%. But nothing is except execution. But if you go with execution then you have to live with the fact that innocent people are going to be killed.

You have the chance of a criminal getting lose and possibly killing innocent people.

You have the chance of the death penalty killing innocent people.

 

[palerider]

There is no other group of humans even remotely like these two in terms of dependence and vulnerablility and rights.

I can think of quite a few situations in which a person could find himslef in a position of dependenency in which his right to live would trump another's property right. Suppose you found yourself on a plane without a ticket; placed there through no fault of your own. Your right to live trumps the right of the owner of the plane to not have you on board unless you paid your way.

The possible senarios are nearly endless and in every case, the right to live trumps the competing interest unless you represent a real, and present threat to another's life.

 

[palerider]

I would make life in prison without parole mean life in prison without parole with no exceptions except if a criminal is exonerated.

Sure it's not 100%. But nothing is except execution. But if you go with execution then you have to live with the fact that innocent people are going to be killed.

You have the chance of a criminal getting lose and possibly killing innocent people.

You have the chance of the death penalty killing innocent people.

When a killer kills, the victim has had no due process. If someone is executed mistakenly, at least he has had due process. You have stated that due process is important and desireable to being killed without due process. What is your point?

And how could you ever make life in prison without the possibility of parole mean that so long as the law can be changed?

 

[Coyote]

When a killer kills, the victim has had no due process. If someone is executed mistakenly, at least he has had due process. You have stated that due process is important and desireable to being killed without due process. What is your point?

And how could you ever make life in prison without the possibility of parole mean that so long as the law can be changed?

Due process is important. But due process becomes irrelevent if YOU are the innocent person on death row and facing execution does it not?
Nothing is permanent, nothing is guaranteed.

You have two positions:

A given: A killer incarcerated.

A possibility: Who might escape and be set free. Who might then kill again. Might. Might. Might.

A given: An innocent man on death row.

A possibility: Who might be executed. And if he is he will die and will know what is happening to him every step of the way.


I am unwilling to condone the killing of an innocent person who is not only innocent but knows and is aware of what is happening and what will happen every step of the way.

 

[Coyote]

I can think of quite a few situations in which a person could find himslef in a position of dependenency in which his right to live would trump another's property right. Suppose you found yourself on a plane without a ticket; placed there through no fault of your own. Your right to live trumps the right of the owner of the plane to not have you on board unless you paid your way.

The possible senarios are nearly endless and in every case, the right to live trumps the competing interest unless you represent a real, and present threat to another's life.

I don't think that is the same. A woman's body is not a plane.

 

[palerider]

I am unwilling to condone the killing of an innocent person who is not only innocent but knows and is aware of what is happening and what will happen every step of the way.

But you will condone the killing of innocents who are unaware of what is going to happen to them and why? Tell me coyote, does that apply to folks who are mentally retarded as well as the unborn or just "them"?

 

[palerider]

I don't think that is the same. A woman's body is not a plane.

But a child is still being murdered, without legal consequence, for being place in a position it has no control over through no fault of its own. It is always going to come back around to a child being killed because it is inconvenient, or because its father was a criminal and try as you might coyote, that fact is not going to go away and you are never going to be able to make a rational argument why its right to live is less important than someone else's convenience or feelings.

And the whole body argument fails because it is a temporary arrangement at best. If the child was going to hijack her body for the rest of her life, then you would have an argument but 9 months of inconvenience (in reality 4 months) does not trump another human being's right to live.

We have talked a good bit on this, and other subjects and you seem to be very bright and have high personal standards. So tell me, isn't it an insult to and a constant assault upon your personal integrity to keep trying to find an argument that will justify killing a child? And if you do ever come up with an argument that completely justifies killing unborn children, will you view it as a victory?