Abortion

[top gun]

It isn't a perfect world, but instead of supporting fully legalized abortion we could see what we could do to attack the heart of the problem - in other words, discuss how to make abortion unnecessary (you know, except in those special circumstances).

I'm talking better, more available contraception and much better sexual education for teenagers. Abstinence-only education is a joke, only I'm pretty sure no one's laughing.

Another thing (and this is just something that's been kicking around in the back of my head) that might help would be to start to break down some of the taboo that surrounds sexual activity. Yes, it's a private thing, but if discussion of it could be conducted comfortably then a lot of the mistakes people make with it could be remedied.

While we may end up disagreeing on the various reasons why abortion is important as a medical and legal option to all women. Your points are very thoughtful, well taken, and of course very good ideas. I would always hope they would be used but in conjunction with leaving the "choice" issue as safe & legal last option.

 

[palerider]

KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL! I know. I was discussing the difference with USMC between everybody being affected by a financial decision of choice and the personal smaller number affected by a woman and pro-choice.

It is killing and if you don't like to be reminded of the ramifications of your position, perhaps you should examine your position rather than rage impotently at me.

 

[top gun]

It is killing and if you don't like to be reminded of the ramifications of your position, perhaps you should examine your position rather than rage impotently at me.

Oh do you think I'm raging at you? Certainly not.

As I've said before numerous times everyone knows what it is. It is stopping the development of or "killing" life by not letting it proceed... but also way before it could ever survive out on its own.

I totally understand your position. We just disagree on when the actual woman involved can make the decision to not give birth to a child. You say not even with Birth control pills. While I along with the majority of the American people and The United States Supreme Court say up to a certain point in a pregnancy.

If saying kill is your thrill then use it at will. See no rage... I'm even casting you out a little rhyme.

 

[ArmChair General]

It is killing and if you don't like to be reminded of the ramifications of your position, perhaps you should examine your position rather than rage impotently at me.

Is all killing wrong?

Please tell me why I should be more concerned with a fetus over a living, breathing, conscious human being?

 

[palerider]

Is all killing wrong?

Please tell me why I should be more concerned with a fetus over a living, breathing, conscious human being?

You shouldn't be more concerned with the value of one life over the other. Both are living human beings. Both have an inalienable right to live. No right that any human being in this country supercedes your right to live unless you are threatening their right to live. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

 

[ArmChair General]

You shouldn't be more concerned with the value of one life over the other. Both are living human beings. Both have an inalienable right to live. No right that any human being in this country supercedes your right to live unless you are threatening their right to live. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

So if I am to understand this correctly, you only beileve that people living in your country have a right to live?

You also didn't answer me if it was always wrong to kill. Im assuming that by your answer you are both against the death penalty, since any right you have to get retribution for a crime is superseded by the criminals right to live.

Also, if you answer in the affirmative to question one, then does that mean that you don't care if people in other nations have abortions? If you disagree then does that mean all war is wrong also? Since any reason that could ever be conceived to wage a war of aggression, is always undermined by the principal right to life, no matter who it is?

 

[ArmChair General]

Also, another thing that Im having trouble with, is what you base this right to life on. If you base it on the law, then you realize that law in a democracy changes depending on the whims of the people. If you base it on religion, then you obviously can't expect someone who doesnt beileve as you do to accept your beilefs.

Either way, it seems that your trying to have your cake and eat it too. By claiming the right to life supercedes all other rights, your allowing yourself to fall into a trap that begs one question after another.

I'm still not entirely sure how your right to life actually works in the real world. Perhaps in a fairy tale utopia.

 

[palerider]

So if I am to understand this correctly, you only beileve that people living in your country have a right to live?

I can only speak to the law in this country and the constitution which is supposed to protect our rights.

You also didn't answer me if it was always wrong to kill. Im assuming that by your answer you are both against the death penalty, since any right you have to get retribution for a crime is superseded by the criminals right to live.

I have stated my position over and over. My postion isn't based on religious beliefs, or morals. My position is based in the law and logic. The nature of our legal system is such that in order for a right to be denied to an individual or a group, law must be legislated that specifically enumerates which right is to be denied, from whom it is to be denied, and for what reason it is to be denied. Law has been written and legislated to deny the right to live from people who commit capital crimes and the law specifically enumerates what constitutes a capital crime. No such law exists that denies unborns the right to live.

Also, if you answer in the affirmative to question one, then does that mean that you don't care if people in other nations have abortions? If you disagree then does that mean all war is wrong also? Since any reason that could every be conceived to wage a war, is always undermined by the principal right to life, no matter who it is?

I don't think abortion is right anywhere unless the mother's life or long term health is in danger. I don't live in other countries and as such, don't really have any say there. I

With regard to war. Law has been written and legislated with regard to war.

 

[palerider]

Also, another thing that Im having trouble with, is what you base this right to life on. If you base it on the law, then you realize that law in a democracy changes depending on the whims of the people. If you base it on religion, then you obviously can't expect someone who doesnt beileve as you do to accept your beilefs.

If the representatives of the people had written and legislated law denying the right to live from unborns until such time as they were born or become viable, this argument would not eixist in this form. My position is not based in religion.

Either way, it seems that your trying to have your cake and eat it too. By claiming the right to life supercedes all other rights, your allowing yourself to fall into a trap that begs one question after another.

My position is based in the law and begs no questions and falls into no traps.

I'm still not entirely sure how your right to life actually works in the real world. Perhaps in a fairy tale utopia.

Do you believe that you have a right to live? Do you believe that any right that I have supercedes your right to live? Is there a valid reason for me to kill you that doesn't involve you directly threatening my life or long term health?

 

[ArmChair General]

I can only speak to the law in this country and the constitution which is supposed to protect our rights.

So you are a moral relativist then?

I have stated my position over and over. My postion isn't based on religious beliefs, or morals. My position is based in the law and logic. The nature of our legal system is such that in order for a right to be denied to an individual or a group, law must be legislated that specifically enumerates which right is to be denied, from whom it is to be denied, and for what reason it is to be denied. Law has been written and legislated to deny the right to live from people who commit capital crimes and the law specifically enumerates what constitutes a capital crime. No such law exists that denies unborns the right to live.

Have you? Perhaps because its illogical, people keep questioning it. BEfore we delve more into your verbal sophistry, what exactly do you think the law is based on?

I don't think abortion is right anywhere unless the mother's life or long term health is in danger. I don't live in other countries and as such, don't really have any say there. I

So you are a moral relativist then?

With regard to war. Law has been written and legislated with regard to war.

As such, law has been written in regards to abortion, it is legal. Wether you personally consider it wrong or right is as a non-issue. Since the law already allows it. I'm really confused to what your issue is.

 

[ArmChair General]

If the representatives of the people had written and legislated law denying the right to live from unborns until such time as they were born or become viable, this argument would not eixist in this form. My position is not based in religion.

Does the law recognize a human fetus as a person?

My position is based in the law and begs no questions and falls into no traps.

Does the right to liberty and happiness come after the right to life, if so, what do you base that on?

Do you believe that you have a right to live? Do you believe that any right that I have supercedes your right to live? Is there a valid reason for me to kill you that doesn't involve you directly threatening my life or long term health?

No I don't have some special right to live, neither do you. I want to live, as I'm sure you do. Yes, there are certain rights that others have that supersede my own personal needs or wants, I also extend that right unto animals. I have risked my life for others, because their right to life superseded mine, they were more important than I. If your job was to protect the president, couldn't we reasonably say that the Presidents right to life, superseded yours, in as such that you would take a bullet for him? Yes there are many valid reasons for me to kill that has nothing to do with you directly threatening my life or health. If someone killed my sister, I would kill them, they did not threaten me. If someone attempted to steal my car or rob my house, I would kill them, even if they did not attempt to harm me. If someone attacked a friend of mine, I would have no qualms killing them.

But more importantly, going by your logic, since every birth comes with a chance of the mother's death or long term health effects to the mother, would you agree with me then, that every mother has the right to choose wether she wants to go through with the abortion, and take the life of the unborn that could quite possibly take hers?

 

[Coyote]

Does the law recognize a human fetus as a person?



Does the right to liberty and happiness come after the right to life, if so, what do you base that on?




No I don't have some special right to live, neither do you. I want to live, as I'm sure you do. Yes, there are certain rights that others have that supersede my own personal needs or wants, I also extend that right unto animals. I have risked my life for others, because their right to life superseded mine, they were more important than I. If your job was to protect the president, couldn't we reasonably say that the Presidents right to life, superseded yours, in as such that you would take a bullet for him? Yes there are many valid reasons for me to kill that has nothing to do with you directly threatening my life or health. If someone killed my sister, I would kill them, they did not threaten me. If someone attempted to steal my car or rob my house, I would kill them, even if they did not attempt to harm me. If someone attacked a friend of mine, I would have no qualms killing them.

But more importantly, going by your logic, since every birth comes with a chance of the mother's death or long term health effects to the mother, would you agree with me then, that every mother has the right to choose wether she wants to go through with the abortion, and take the life of the unborn that could quite possibly take hers?

Well said!

 

[top gun]

So you are a moral relativist then?

ArmChair... the guy would have Birth control pills removed from the market and severe legal penalties imposed for their sale, distribution or use because a Birth control pill is a microscopic abortion. If he wouldn't what's he saying... some abortions at early stages are OK. That's what pro-choice says!!!!!!!!!

There's really no talking to someone like this. There's no reasoning. You know there's some religious dogma in there somewhere no matter what he says. This is his perfect world.

Abstinence
No Birth Control Pills
No abortions (except he's willing to go with... to save the life of the mother... but not rape and incest victims)

Can you even imagine how out of touch with the reality of the real world one has to be to see this as a good & gonna happen thing? I mean come on you gotta hope there's no girls in his world. This is like chastity belt times revisited.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't really want to participate in this discussion because I think Mr. Pale is an abusive, despicable misogynist and a man with a secret agenda. Be that as it may, sometimes one has to wade through sh*t despite the foul smell.

If I understand Mr. Pale's position correctly, as soon as a man ejaculates inside a fertile woman, that woman and her life are owned by the fetus. (1)Would you allow a woman to abort a fetus if there was a better than even chance of the fetus causing her death?

(2)As I understand his position, even if a woman is raped, she still must give over her life to the fetus at least until birth, correct?

If my understanding of Mr. Pale's position is correct, then any woman becomes the automatic de facto slave of any man who can impregnate her, at least until the fetus is delivered. In light of the fact that men have a huge advantage in size and strength over women, that men are biologically equipped to force an unwilling woman to become impregnated, and that men are psychologically oriented to believe that this is an acceptable activity, then women are stripped of control over their greatest ability and gift--that of being able to produce a child within the confines of a loving relationship that THEY choose.

This is a very partriarchal attitude derived--in this culture--directly from the desert religions and in other cultures from other traditions. This is an exercise in power, no less than the torture that Mr. Pale advocates. His is a very Old Testament religious position despite his protestations to non-religious motivation. I know that nothing I write will touch Mr. Pale, but instead I address my remarks to all the rest of the people (all men, as far as I know) on this thread.

 

[vyo476]

If I understand Mr. Pale's position correctly, as soon as a man ejaculates inside a fertile woman, that woman and her life are owned by the fetus.

As soon as a man ejaculates inside a fertile woman, the fetus has a life of its own that it is entitled to keep.

(1)Would you allow a woman to abort a fetus if there was a better than even chance of the fetus causing her death?

Yes, absolutely. If it is a matter of the life of the parent against the life of the unborn baby than abortion should still be an option.

(2)As I understand his position, even if a woman is raped, she still must give over her life to the fetus at least until birth, correct?

That one's a bit touchier. Personally, I think abortion should be an option if the victim is found to be too psychologically or physically traumatized to carry the child to term successfully. This is something that needs refining.

If my understanding of Mr. Pale's position is correct, then any woman becomes the automatic de facto slave of any man who can impregnate her, at least until the fetus is delivered. In light of the fact that men have a huge advantage in size and strength over women, that men are biologically equipped to force an unwilling woman to become impregnated, and that men are psychologically oriented to believe that this is an acceptable activity, then women are stripped of control over their greatest ability and gift--that of being able to produce a child within the confines of a loving relationship that THEY choose.

I'm not sure where this came from. I'm also not sure what the letter of the law regarding guardianship of children produced by rape is, but I can tell you what I think: rapists deserve no rights in regards to children produced by their crime.

If this is in terms of recreational sexuality, then I'm sorry, but pregnancy is one of the risks of all sexual intercourse. Whether or not the woman wished to have a child with the man she was sleeping with has no bearing on whether or not that unborn child should be allowed to be killed. It's a "have your cake and eat it too" situation - the sex without the risks. When we factor in the idea that the unborn child has a right to live, the mother's right to engage in sexual activity without having to worry about producing a child with the man she is sleeping with takes a back seat (pun not intended).

This is a very partriarchal attitude derived--in this culture--directly from the desert religions and in other cultures from other traditions. This is an exercise in power, no less than the torture that Mr. Pale advocates. His is a very Old Testament religious position despite his protestations to non-religious motivation. I know that nothing I write will touch Mr. Pale, but instead I address my remarks to all the rest of the people (all men, as far as I know) on this thread.

I guess I don't see it as being patriarchal, mostly because I don't see it as being about the woman. If it was about restricting womens' rights I would have been horribly reviled by it; instead, I see it as championing the rights of unborn children.