Abortion

[Coyote]

That goes exactly both ways coyote. You concede that an unborn is a human being and freely admit that you can't put your finger on the whole "personhood" argument decicevely enough to argue life and death to your own satisfaction, much less someone elses. This being the case, who has primary rights over the unborn's body? Since it is a human being, it's right to live is equal to it's mother's right to live and the only thing that can tip the ballance is if it represents a "GENUINE" threat to its mother's life or long term health and a 12 in 100,000 chance does not represent a real and present threat in any court of law. Human rights are human rights. The very term implies that they apply to all human beings and if any group is excluded, then a terrible violation is being carried out.

I can not get around two major things:

That the unborn is human being and when do it's rights supercede mine and that it is a human being. But when (to me) is it a person? How can I conceive of a cluster of undifferentiated cells to be a person in the same rights as say a 6 month old fetus...or a baby born...a child...and adult? The latter all have functioning nervous systems, a brain, an environmental awareness, the ability to feel and maybe appreciate loss of life. We've gone over this - but logic alone fails to solve the dilemma for me because logic alone can't answer my questions.

Rights to my body. I can not express how fundamental that is to me and how frightening the possibility that another human being can take control of my body and make decisions about it - a human that has no awareness or care about who I am, how I live or whether I live - and I don't mean the unborn child here. It is a human who is remote and distant and who washes his or her hands of me once the decision is made. It is the humans marching in the pro-life rallies, blocking my access to an abortion clinic (should that be my choice), legislating for the right for someone else to control my body. No other category of human being can - potentially - have the rights to their own body legally stripped away without having committed a crime.

So what is the answer? For me - I know what I would answer, in regards to my life and body - but do I have the right to make that the answer for everyone else?

 

[palerider]

That the unborn is human being and when do it's rights supercede mine and that it is a human being. But when (to me) is it a person? How can I conceive of a cluster of undifferentiated cells to be a person in the same rights as say a 6 month old fetus...or a baby born...a child...and adult? The latter all have functioning nervous systems, a brain, an environmental awareness, the ability to feel and maybe appreciate loss of life. We've gone over this - but logic alone fails to solve the dilemma for me because logic alone can't answer my questions.

You can't get around it because you are looking at it exactly backwards. It is a given that anyone's right to live supercedes any right you have except your own right to live so the question isn't it's rigts superceding yours, but your right to "whatever" superceding its very right to live.

All of the systems, awareness, feelings, etc., are only aspects of maturity. You apparently have no trouble viewing an infant as a human being with rights even though it is at least 25 years away from being a fully mature human being while it is only 9 months away from being as immature as a human being can possibly be. The inability to "see" comes from within you and is not the fault of the child.

Rights to my body. I can not express how fundamental that is to me and how frightening the possibility that another human being can take control of my body and make decisions about it - a human that has no awareness or care about who I am, how I live or whether I live - and I don't mean the unborn child here. It is a human who is remote and distant and who washes his or her hands of me once the decision is made. It is the humans marching in the pro-life rallies, blocking my access to an abortion clinic (should that be my choice), legislating for the right for someone else to control my body. No other category of human being can - potentially - have the rights to their own body legally stripped away without having committed a crime.

Does your right to your body include killing another human being that is dependent upon you for its very life as a result of your actions? This does account for about 99+ % of all abortions.

So what is the answer? For me - I know what I would answer, in regards to my life and body - but do I have the right to make that the answer for everyone else?

We either respect the right to live or we don't. We have seen over and over that if one group can be singled out and dehumanized, then another group can be as well and the more we do it, the less value we place on the lives of those who have not yet been singled out.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So if it is a man vs woman issue, why is the child the one who ends up dead? This is a woman vs child issue and any attempt to spin it in another way is simply dishonest.Most killers don't do it casually and most pay a high emotional price for their crimes unless they are sociopaths. Does that mean that we shoud not punish them for the fact that they have killed? Does the fact that they suffer make it OK to kill?
You clearly are angry at men who neglect their responsibilities so why is it that you transfer your rage to the child? Is it that you feel powerless against men and believe that someone must be punished and if it cant' be the man, then you are willing to see the child sacrificed? Maybe especially if it is a male child?

While calling me a liar repeatedly and pontifcating on your honesty, you have refused to have a coversation with me by ignoring valid questions and taking things I said out of context in order to twist them to suit your own purposes (a case in point is accusing me of wishing to torture the families of suspects). I don't really disagree with you all that much on the issue of abortion, but as a woman who knows many women, I can see that the problem is not the black and white issue that you demand it to be. You have continually said that if one is honest then all issues are black and white, but that ignores all of the messy details which you don't want to look at. I don't blame you for not wanting to look closely at the messy details--it's a mess! But the mess is systemic and you want to blame the whole thing on women when in fact men are a much larger cause of the problem.

I think you are being hypocritical and disengenuous, your reductionist thinking on this subject is stereotypical Christian misogyny despite your protestations to the contrary. You've brought nothing to the conversation but vitriol, you've not made a single recommendation that didn't stigmatize, blame, and denigrate women. Couple that misogyny with your seeming violent hatred for Islam and your eagerness to allow torture makes you appear to me to be a very disturbed person in deep conflict with himself over issues of violence, sadism, sexism, and religion. I don't think I will respond to you attacks anymore, you are too one-sided and advocate simple-minded remedies that ignore the complex nature of reality. You appear compassionless except for babies--not actually an uncommon response for a man who is deeply afraid, and very angry in response to that fear.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Is dependence a valid reason to kill?
If you believe that abortion is murder, and murder is, by definition, one human being killing another human being, how is it that you compare a living human being to a cancer? As I pointed out quite a while back mare, your philosophy is very conflicted and it comes out in your arguments. You aren't being honest with yourself so it is impossible for you to argue your position rationally. Read back through your posts mare, the only true thing in them is that you are very angry with men and you can't bring yourself to simply make that statement as it would then be clear that you are willing to sacrifice children to your anger at us.

This is a good example of what I spoke about in my previous post. Your anger makes you dim, you can't see past the rage and fear. You demand that others MUST be one-dimensional creatures with the agenda that YOU ascribe to them. Your anger doesn't let you think or listen or learn. It's sad, I don't think you have a very pleasant life and that makes me feel sorry for you. But since I can't help you, I'll leave you be.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What's annoying about you PaleRider is that I find myself respecting - though disagreeing - with your opinion.

I don't suppose you could find it in yourself to somehow throw in some gratuituous statement about how a woman should hold an asprin between her legs just to fullfil the stereotype?

I love your humor, Coyote, but I think it's wasted on Pale.

 

[Coyote]

Does your right to your body include killing another human being that is dependent upon you for its very life as a result of your actions? This does account for about 99+ % of all abortions.

I don't know.

We have two fundamentally opposed rights here:

the right to determine what happens to your own body
the right to life

We have two unique categories of human beings - unlike any other (you really can not make a valid comparison to the dehumanizing of black people for example, because their situation is and was fundamentally different).

• You have one group of human beings who are totally helpless and utterly dependent on a "host" body to develop to the point where they can survive outside that person's body and in the process that group takes virtual biological control of that body's resources.
  
• You have another group of human beings who can find themselves in the position - willing or unwilling - of having to provide that host body to another human being. No matter how well a pregnancy goes it takes a toll phsyically, and mentally - childbirth is never an "inconvenience". In addition, biology puts this group of human beings into the default position of having to take responsibility for all aspects of the pregnancy and subsequent birth whether they want it or not.

Two fundamentally opposing sets of rights. I am not sure that I agree that the "right to life" trumps all.

Right now, the law does not recognize the unborn child's rights as greater than, or even equal to the mother's. Of course that could change. If it did - then by doing so it would be setting a precedent that the right to life over-ruled all other rights. If that is so - then what would you say about the following situation?

A person was dying of end stage kidney failure. You have two healthy kidneys and are a perfect match, and can afford to give one. If you don't, the person will die. Should you be forced to do this?​

 

[Coyote]

I love your humor, Coyote, but I think it's wasted on Pale.

Thanks...I can't help it. I always clown around. Pale is actually kind of surprising - ya never know

 

[palerider]

While calling me a liar repeatedly and pontifcating on your honesty, you have refused to have a coversation with me by ignoring valid questions and taking things I said out of context in order to twist them to suit your own purposes (a case in point is accusing me of wishing to torture the families of suspects).

Caring for children after they are born has nothing to do with killing them before they are born unless you are suggesting that everyone who is unhappy, or hungry, or unloved should be killed along with all of these unborns who "MIGHT" grow up unhappy.

I don't really disagree with you all that much on the issue of abortion, but as a woman who knows many women, I can see that the problem is not the black and white issue that you demand it to be.

You attempt to color the issue because you can't face the truth. Women are killing their children by the millions for reasons that amount to no more than convenience and you support them in it because you are angry at men.

You have continually said that if one is honest then all issues are black and white, but that ignores all of the messy details which you don't want to look at. I don't blame you for not wanting to look closely at the messy details--it's a mess! But the mess is systemic and you want to blame the whole thing on women when in fact men are a much larger cause of the problem.

Are you saying that the "mess" is a valid reason to kill innocent children?

I think you are being hypocritical and disengenuous, your reductionist thinking on this subject is stereotypical Christian misogyny despite your protestations to the contrary. You've brought nothing to the conversation but vitriol, you've not made a single recommendation that didn't stigmatize, blame, and denigrate women. Couple that misogyny with your seeming violent hatred for Islam and your eagerness to allow torture makes you appear to me to be a very disturbed person in deep conflict with himself over issues of violence, sadism, sexism, and religion. I don't think I will respond to you attacks anymore, you are too one-sided and advocate simple-minded remedies that ignore the complex nature of reality. You appear compassionless except for babies--not actually an uncommon response for a man who is deeply afraid, and very angry in response to that fear.

Again with the personal attacks on me. This is your pattern mare. When you are unable to effectively argue my points, you resort to personal attacks on me as if that constitutes an actual argument.

I don't believe that I have attacked you mare. If I have, please bring forward the post. Look above for a fine example of your attacks against me, but in review, I don't find anything that could be construed as an attack against you. Have you lied again mare?

 

[palerider]

This is a good example of what I spoke about in my previous post. Your anger makes you dim, you can't see past the rage and fear.

What rage and fear mare. You claim that the woman has the right to kill the child because it depends upon her for its very life. I asked if you are suggesting that dependence is a valid reason to kill. Either you can answer the question or you can't. It is clear that the answer that you must give in order to be consistent makes you uncomfortable so instead of answering, you rail against me and attack me personally again.

You demand that others MUST be one-dimensional creatures with the agenda that YOU ascribe to them. Your anger doesn't let you think or listen or learn. It's sad, I don't think you have a very pleasant life and that makes me feel sorry for you. But since I can't help you, I'll leave you be.

I have had a very pleasant life, full of friends, fun, philosophy, and reverence, but very little anger, frustration, or anything else that might be construed as negative. I am honest mare. My life, like my philosophy is straight forward and unconflicted.

Maybe I will ask again. Do you believe that dependence upon another is a valid reason to kill? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What rage and fear mare. You claim that the woman has the right to kill the child because it depends upon her for its very life. I asked if you are suggesting that dependence is a valid reason to kill. Either you can answer the question or you can't. It is clear that the answer that you must give in order to be consistent makes you uncomfortable so instead of answering, you rail against me and attack me personally again.
I have had a very pleasant life, full of friends, fun, philosophy, and reverence, but very little anger, frustration, or anything else that might be construed as negative. I am honest mare. My life, like my philosophy is straight forward and unconflicted.
Maybe I will ask again. Do you believe that dependence upon another is a valid reason to kill? A simple yes or no will suffice.

While calling me a liar repeatedly and pontifcating on your honesty, you have refused to have a coversation with me by ignoring valid questions and taking things I said out of context in order to twist them to suit your own purposes (a case in point is accusing me of wishing to torture the families of suspects). I don't really disagree with you all that much on the issue of abortion, but as a woman who knows many women, I can see that the problem is not the black and white issue that you demand it to be. You have continually said that if one is honest then all issues are black and white, but that ignores all of the messy details which you don't want to look at. I don't blame you for not wanting to look closely at the messy details--it's a mess! But the mess is systemic and you want to blame the whole thing on women when in fact men are a much larger cause of the problem.

I think you are being hypocritical and disengenuous, your reductionist thinking on this subject is stereotypical Christian misogyny despite your protestations to the contrary. You've brought nothing to the conversation but vitriol, you've not made a single recommendation that didn't stigmatize, blame, and denigrate women. Couple that misogyny with your seeming violent hatred for Islam and your eagerness to allow torture makes you appear to me to be a very disturbed person in deep conflict with himself over issues of violence, sadism, sexism, and religion. I don't think I will respond to you attacks anymore, you are too one-sided and advocate simple-minded remedies that ignore the complex nature of reality. You appear compassionless except for babies--not actually an uncommon response for a man who is deeply afraid, and very angry in response to that fear.

 

[palerider]

I don't know.

We have two fundamentally opposed rights here:

the right to determine what happens to your own body
the right to life

First, all rights are secondary to the right to live. Second, after a careful examination of the constitution, I find no right to determine what happens to your body. I do find numerous laws that tell you what you may and may not do with your body, but no right to determine what happens to it. Suicide is illegal, consuming certain substances is illegal, selling it is illegal in most places, selling irreplaceable parts of it is illlegal. Exactly where do you find this "right" to determine what happens to your body? Is it a fabricated right like the "right" to kill a child that is less than convenient?

We have two unique categories of human beings - unlike any other (you really can not make a valid comparison to the dehumanizing of black people for example, because their situation is and was fundamentally different).

All groups of human beings that have been dehumanized for the purpose of having all their human rights taken away have been fundamentally different from the rest of "us". Otherwise it wouldn't have been possible to dehumanize them.

• You have one group of human beings who are totally helpless and utterly dependent on a "host" body to develop to the point where they can survive outside that person's body and in the process that group takes virtual biological control of that body's resources.
  
• You have another group of human beings who can find themselves in the position - willing or unwilling - of having to provide that host body to another human being. No matter how well a pregnancy goes it takes a toll phsyically, and mentally - childbirth is never an "inconvenience". In addition, biology puts this group of human beings into the default position of having to take responsibility for all aspects of the pregnancy and subsequent birth whether they want it or not.

First, the child does not take virtual biological control of the mother's body's resources. If you must mischaracterize biology, don't use it as part of your argument.

Second. All other rights are secondary to the right to live.

Right now, the law does not recognize the unborn child's rights as greater than, or even equal to the mother's. Of course that could change. If it did - then by doing so it would be setting a precedent that the right to life over-ruled all other rights. If that is so - then what would you say about the following situation?

"Right now" we are in the midst of one of the greatest human rights violations in human history. 40 million and counting in this country alone. In the past 40 years the total is about 1,840,000,000. Almost 2 billion coyote. More than socialism, communism, fascism, WWI, WWII, Viet Nam, Korea and Iraq combined. How do you answer a number like that?

A person was dying of end stage kidney failure. You have two healthy kidneys and are a perfect match, and can afford to give one. If you don't, the person will die. Should you be forced to do this?​

Which organ does an unborn require that the mother forfiet in order for it to live? Like it or not, mom's body is engineered to support the child. She has entire systems of her body dedicated exclusively to supporting the child. Since my body is not engineered to donate organs, and once my kidney is removed, it is lost to me forever rather than 9 months, your analogy fails.

 

[palerider]

While calling me a liar repeatedly and pontifcating on your honesty, you have refused to have a coversation with me by ignoring valid questions and taking things I said out of context in order to twist them to suit your own purposes (a case in point is accusing me of wishing to torture the families of suspects).

When you are caught in a lie mare, pointing out that you have lied is not an attack. You have been caught in several lies during the course of this discussion.

Your argument that killing innocents is OK (even though you consider it to be murder) because men don't accept their responsibilities is not a valid point. The argument is a fallacy. You are suggesting that two wrongs make a right. Failing to accept responsibility is a bad thing. Killing a child because a man failed to take responsibility is monstrous.

I don't really disagree with you all that much on the issue of abortion,

And yet, you spend a great deal of time attacking me personally over my position on the issue.

I think you are being hypocritical and disengenuous,

Bring forward an example.

your reductionist thinking on this subject is stereotypical Christian misogyny

Bring forward an example.

You've brought nothing to the conversation but vitriol,

Bring forward an example.

you've not made a single recommendation that didn't stigmatize, blame, and denigrate women.

Bring forward an example.

Couple that misogyny with your seeming violent hatred for Islam and your eagerness to allow torture makes you appear to me to be a very disturbed person in deep conflict with himself over issues of violence, sadism, sexism, and religion.

I am not sure what this has to do with anything but feel free to bring forward an example of my "violent hatred" for islam, or my "eagerness" to allow torture.

The fact is mare, you aren't going to be able to bring forward any examples from my posts that match the descriptions you have given because once again, you have fabricated. You are lying mare. You are unable to argue my points, so you make up lies in an effort to deflect the discussion away from your inability to argue the points.

 

[Coyote]

First, all rights are secondary to the right to live. Second, after a careful examination of the constitution, I find no right to determine what happens to your body. I do find numerous laws that tell you what you may and may not do with your body, but no right to determine what happens to it. Suicide is illegal, consuming certain substances is illegal, selling it is illegal in most places, selling irreplaceable parts of it is illlegal. Exactly where do you find this "right" to determine what happens to your body? Is it a fabricated right like the "right" to kill a child that is less than convenient?

No where in the constitution does it grant any one the right to another person's body. Can you make me donate an organ against my will? No - not even when I'm dead. My body is my sovereign property - it is me. Can someone else have rights to me? Against my will? Where does it say that?

All groups of human beings that have been dehumanized for the purpose of having all their human rights taken away have been fundamentally different from the rest of "us". Otherwise it wouldn't have been possible to dehumanize them.

No group of humans use each other in the same way that these two do - there is nothing remotely comparable - certainly not color of skin.

First, the child does not take virtual biological control of the mother's body's resources. If you must mischaracterize biology, don't use it as part of your argument.

Didn't you say close to the same thing when arguing that the fetus was an individual life form seperate from the mother - i e it begins chemical communication, it control's the mother's systems? Isn't that the same thing?

Which organ does an unborn require that the mother forfiet in order for it to live? Like it or not, mom's body is engineered to support the child. She has entire systems of her body dedicated exclusively to supporting the child. Since my body is not engineered to donate organs, and once my kidney is removed, it is lost to me forever rather than 9 months, your analogy fails.

That is skirting the question. If the right to live supercedes all others then by refusing to donate you are sentancing someone to death. People can live perfectly fine with one kidney. It's not just 9 months that are lost - you have the possibility for long term health issues and the remote possibility of mortality. I knew someone who had a pregnancy that was going on long fine - when she delivered, she suffered a stroke which killed her.

 

[palerider]

No where in the constitution does it grant any one the right to another person's body. Can you make me donate an organ against my will? No - not even when I'm dead. My body is my sovereign property - it is me. Can someone else have rights to me? Against my will? Where does it say that?

Carrying a child is a biological function coyote. Expecting law to regulate biological functions is rediculous. I can't make you donate an organ against your will and by the same token, I can't make, or even imagine law that regulates the natural operation of your body's systems.

No group of humans use each other in the same way that these two do - there is nothing remotely comparable - certainly not color of skin.

They were all different. How else could they be dehumanized. No unborn is doing anything that you didn't do already and yet, you would condemn them to death now that your right to live is protected.

Didn't you say close to the same thing when arguing that the fetus was an individual life form seperate from the mother - i e it begins chemical communication, it control's the mother's systems? Isn't that the same thing?

No. I said that the unborn is in chemical communication with its mother letting her know that she is pregnant. Once her body knows that it is pregnant, her own systems go to work doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

That is skirting the question. If the right to live supercedes all others then by refusing to donate you are sentancing someone to death. People can live perfectly fine with one kidney. It's not just 9 months that are lost - you have the possibility for long term health issues and the remote possibility of mortality. I knew someone who had a pregnancy that was going on long fine - when she delivered, she suffered a stroke which killed her.

My body was designed with two kidneys. And it is not possible that I would be the only one in the world who could donate a kidney. And people who experience kidney failure can live on dialysis for a very long time although it is inconvenient. No one else can nurture the child and it has no option. Either it has the human right to live or it doesn't.

I know that you want to come up with a valid reason to kill unborns, but can you really argue that dependence is a valid reason to kill? And if it is, can you apply it to all humans or must you single out a particular group of humans?

You didn't answer to the fact that nearly two billion have been killed coyote. What do you say to that?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

When you are caught in a lie mare, pointing out that you have lied is not an attack. You have been caught in several lies during the course of this discussion.

You said that you didn't call me a liar. Hmmm. I think what's happening is that when you can't figure out what I'm saying you assume I must be lying or somesuch. Good technique.

Your argument that killing innocents is OK (even though you consider it to be murder) because men don't accept their responsibilities is not a valid point. The argument is a fallacy. You are suggesting that two wrongs make a right. Failing to accept responsibility is a bad thing. Killing a child because a man failed to take responsibility is monstrous.

This last paragraph here is an example of why I won't continue to talk to you. What I said very clearly is that women are often put in an intolerable situation by men and we are always the ones who have to clean up after you. Even in cases of rape, you still maintain that women have no rights--in essence we are breeding machines who must perform for whichever man manages to impregnate us. You will never stop abortions by attacking women, the dictator of Romania tried and he killed a lot us and in so doing ended up with whole buildings full of unwanted children dying for lack of care, I think killing a child with neglect is worse that killing a fetus. We are not dealing with "two wrongs making a right" we are dealing with the lesser of two evils. You have not suggested any way to deal with 1,000,000 unwanted babies in this country every year EXCEPT YOU WANT TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO GET AN ABORTION. That begs the question you don't want to address: who will care for all those babies, we know it won't be you because you have already said that you have NOT adopted any unwanted babies, so it's easy to see how deep your compassion for their suffering goes.

I would like to see the killing stopped, but it won't be done by blaming women and passing laws to force them to clean up after men. You have more credibility discussing torture, at least it's something you can do or perhaps have done. Dealing with being raped and forced to carry an unwanted child is something for which you are not able to speak with authority.