Abortion

[DrWho]

G

Of course it does, what I'm saying is that men don't have the right to take women's freedom away from them.

Of course men do not have the right to take women's freedom away.

But in this case we are talking about members of congress balancing the right to privacy versus the right to life. It is not a man versus woman issue.

 

[palerider]

Of course men do not have the right to take women's freedom away.

But in this case we are talking about members of congress balancing the right to privacy versus the right to life. It is not a man versus woman issue.

Good point.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I personally believe that there is more than just the physical life and that it begins at ensoulment.

But I was aiming at the point at which the "blob of undifferentiated cells" becomes a person. For those who do not accept my idea of a soul there must be a point scientifically at which this happens. And they must support their position with some logic.

Brainwaves. Why?
Shaped like a person. Why?
Sentience. Why?
Emotion. Why?
Pain. Why?
Birth. Why?
DNA. Why?

In my opinion each of these fails to permit us to claim 100% that something is a person and not some other animal. Though the best of the lot is DNA - which of course would define personhood at conception, unless you are a downs child.

I agree with you that we are more than bio-machines, but I was trying to find out what you were aiming at. Thanks.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Of course men do not have the right to take women's freedom away.

But in this case we are talking about members of congress balancing the right to privacy versus the right to life. It is not a man versus woman issue.

It IS a man vs woman issue if it is a Congress of men who decide for women and require them to obey by force of law. I wish all the Pale Riders of the world research what happened in Romania under Ceausescu when he decreed a mandatory death sentence for any woman who had an abortion.

There is an underlying idea in all of these anti-abortion arguments that women abort babies like clipping their fingernails. I am a woman, I know a lot of women who have had abortions and NOT ONE ever did it casually, not one ever did it without intense soul-searching, and I never met one who didn't pay a high emotional price for the decision. I hesitate to say it like this, but this is a ****ty world for women trying to raise children by themselves. Much of this is due to the Fathers not doing their part to support their children, but part of it is the prevailing idea that raising children isn't really important so it isn't granted any monetary value in this culture. Single Moms are required to work and pay for child care when in fact child care should be a full-time paid position if we want to have decent children. As a culture we can't have it both ways, either children are valuable and raising them is worth support from the culture at large or they are easily replaced and therefore expendable before and after birth--think about all the children living precariously in poor areas in this country, if they are expendable why aren't fetuses expendable too?

 

[DrWho]

It IS a man vs woman issue if it is a Congress of men who decide for women and require them to obey by force of law. I wish all the Pale Riders of the world research what happened in Romania under Ceausescu when he decreed a mandatory death sentence for any woman who had an abortion.

Even though there are more men than women. I believe they were elected to represent everyone in their district and that they do in fact do that.

But just to ask a hypothetical question: Would you support anti-abortion/pro-life laws if a strictly female group enacted the laws?

Is it OK for other groups not represented by people of the same group in congress to complain about the laws congress makes?

There is an underlying idea in all of these anti-abortion arguments that women abort babies like clipping their fingernails. I am a woman, I know a lot of women who have had abortions and NOT ONE ever did it casually, not one ever did it without intense soul-searching, and I never met one who didn't pay a high emotional price for the decision. I hesitate to say it like this, but this is a ****ty world for women trying to raise children by themselves. Much of this is due to the Fathers not doing their part to support their children, but part of it is the prevailing idea that raising children isn't really important so it isn't granted any monetary value in this culture. Single Moms are required to work and pay for child care when in fact child care should be a full-time paid position if we want to have decent children. As a culture we can't have it both ways, either children are valuable and raising them is worth support from the culture at large or they are easily replaced and therefore expendable before and after birth--think about all the children living precariously in poor areas in this country, if they are expendable why aren't fetuses expendable too?

Woa. There is just too much here, that I agree with and disagree with, to respond to.

 

[Coyote]

Wouldn't this definition take away George Bush's right to life?

shhit...you made me choke on my drink!

 

[Coyote]

The abortion issue is black and white. If a woman isn't terminating a pregnancy because her life or long term health is in danger, she is killing her child for reasons that can amount to no more than convenience.

No...you are setting up a false dichotomy here.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

No...you are setting up a false dichotomy here.

What other reason then would the woman have for killing her unborn?

 

[Coyote]

Sorry about the confusion. I will post it again and try to make it more clear.

Every cell in her body has her DNA. Any cell that does not have her DNA is not a part of her body.

Then it does not belong in her body right?

Would you support laws that would let her continue to exercise control over her body but would disallow any procedures that would harm the body of someone else.

So if she wanted to alter the hormones in her body and the changes caused her to have a miscarriage that would be ok? (provided that this did not result in stopping the baby from having any brainwaves). I am exploring the line between what is her body and what is not. The hormones are clearly her body but the result of the miscarriage is a dead baby.

I don't think I've ever argued that the fetus is itself her body - I'm just saying it has no right over her body - only it's own and that might be a lesser right than her right to her body.

But if she wanted to have the limbs of some other person (even though it is inside of her) cut from it's torso and removed from in her then that would not be ok? (the other person I am referring to is the baby inside of her) In this case she is not manipulating her own body via her hormones. She is directly impacting the body of another person.

I'm not sure if I am understanding you...are you saying that in some cases where she is manipulating her body to expell the fetus, it is one thing but if it is a surgical intervention to remove it it is another...? For example the difference between the morning after pill and a late term abortion?

Would the same rules apply to me? I love peanut oil. In fact, I would love to rub it all over my body (it keeps my skin soft) . Is it OK for me to then go hang around with some people who have a deathly peanut allergy? Am I not only taking action on my own body? So what if it effects another person. It's my body.

This is different because that other person isn't claiming you're body or any rights to it - he or she is not using your body against your will.

 

[Coyote]

What other reason then would the woman have for killing her unborn?

Lots of reasons. For example - why should she have to bear the child that was forced upon her by rape? Maybe she is a child herself? Maybe she doesn't have the $10,000 needed to bring a child into this world?

If you are saying that choosing to terminate a pregnancy is a matter of "convenience" then you are likewise saying that having children is of no more importantce than a "convenience".

I would hardly call such a life-altering event a "convenience".

 

[Coyote]

It IS a man vs woman issue if it is a Congress of men who decide for women and require them to obey by force of law. I wish all the Pale Riders of the world research what happened in Romania under Ceausescu when he decreed a mandatory death sentence for any woman who had an abortion.

There is an underlying idea in all of these anti-abortion arguments that women abort babies like clipping their fingernails. I am a woman, I know a lot of women who have had abortions and NOT ONE ever did it casually, not one ever did it without intense soul-searching, and I never met one who didn't pay a high emotional price for the decision. I hesitate to say it like this, but this is a ****ty world for women trying to raise children by themselves. Much of this is due to the Fathers not doing their part to support their children, but part of it is the prevailing idea that raising children isn't really important so it isn't granted any monetary value in this culture. Single Moms are required to work and pay for child care when in fact child care should be a full-time paid position if we want to have decent children. As a culture we can't have it both ways, either children are valuable and raising them is worth support from the culture at large or they are easily replaced and therefore expendable before and after birth--think about all the children living precariously in poor areas in this country, if they are expendable why aren't fetuses expendable too?

Thank you for saying this

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Lots of reasons. For example - why should she have to bear the child that was forced upon her by rape? Maybe she is a child herself? Maybe she doesn't have the $10,000 needed to bring a child into this world?

In other words, the baby poses an inconvience.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Even though there are more men than women. I believe they were elected to represent everyone in their district and that they do in fact do that.

But just to ask a hypothetical question: Would you support anti-abortion/pro-life laws if a strictly female group enacted the laws?

Is it OK for other groups not represented by people of the same group in congress to complain about the laws congress makes?

Of course, complaining is an American right.

What we are discussing here is mobocracy. Does the majority have the right to control all the minorities by virtue of superior numbers? I don't think so. When white people vote to enslave blacks, I think that's wrong. When the Christian majority passes laws to restrict the rights of gays, I think that's wrong. If the majority outlawed the eating of meat, would you agree just because it was the majority?

If there was a referendum and only women could vote, I doubt that they would ever deny themselves the freedom to choose. I'd go along with it though, partly because it's not an issue for me at nearly 60, but also because I know that you cannot legislate abortion out of existence--check what happened in Romania.

 

[DrWho]

Then it does not belong in her body right?



I don't think I've ever argued that the fetus is itself her body - I'm just saying it has no right over her body - only it's own and that might be a lesser right than her right to her body.



I'm not sure if I am understanding you...are you saying that in some cases where she is manipulating her body to expell the fetus, it is one thing but if it is a surgical intervention to remove it it is another...? For example the difference between the morning after pill and a late term abortion?



This is different because that other person isn't claiming you're body or any rights to it - he or she is not using your body against your will.

Are you really arguing that an unborn baby does not belong in it's mothers body and that it is using her body against her will.


I would argue that a fetus' (a living human) rights to it's own body (specifically the right to have it's body stay alive) clearly supersedes the mothers right to control her own body, except when it is the life of her body in question.

It is unfortunate that the life and self-determination of the mother is so entwined in the life and self-determination of the baby. But putting aside the entanglement it really just comes down to weighing one life against one persons choice. The only thing left to be determined is exactly when is it a person.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

In other words, the baby poses an inconvience.

Perhaps an impossibility if the woman hasn't got the money and the Father has disappeared. Before you can pass judgment on the woman you would have to be intimately familiar with her situation--much like soldiers who have to make decisions that civilians can't understand because they aren't familiar with the intimate details of the situation. As much as we may dislike the actions of some women, we have to give women as a group the right to own their bodies.