Abortion

[palerider]

I switched side in the debate to get some input from pale. I was serious when I said doubt is the only standard for learning. He obviously was more interested in the 'letter' of the law.

I have no doubt on this subject. I went through every doubt that I could conjure in the process of going from pro choice to pro life. Any doubt that I might have held has long since burned away.

 

[ilikeboobs]

if it's legal to kill babies, then it should be legal to kill anyone. just because they can't walk or talk doesn't mean they're deserving of death because you feel inconvenienced by a kid. i feel inconvenienced that i have to work - should that be grounds to make aborting our society legal?

 

[Coyote]

if it's legal to kill babies, then it should be legal to kill anyone. just because they can't walk or talk doesn't mean they're deserving of death because you feel inconvenienced by a kid. i feel inconvenienced that i have to work - should that be grounds to make aborting our society legal?

So you don't think there's a difference between carrying, bearing and raising a child and asking "do you want fries with that" at work?

 

[ilikeboobs]

So you don't think there's a difference between carrying, bearing and raising a child and asking "do you want fries with that" at work?

What i'm saying is people need to be responsible for their actions and they should accept the consequences. If you choose to have sex with someone you should expect there's a chance you could get pregnant. If you choose to get coffee at McDonald's you should expect it to be hot. If you choose to take Vioxx you should expect there might be side effects. Killing somone to compensate for the fact that you are bothered by something YOU were stupid enough to do seems a bit, well, mentally retarded to me.

And if you really want to abort something, abort some part of you. A baby is NOT a part of you - it's a separate person which happens to depend on you for life until it's born. If you use the "it's her body" argument, then technically every mother out there should be able to kill her son or daughter, no matter how old they are, because it's "part of her body".

 

[Coyote]

What i'm saying is people need to be responsible for their actions and they should accept the consequences. If you choose to have sex with someone you should expect there's a chance you could get pregnant. If you choose to get coffee at McDonald's you should expect it to be hot.

This I agree with.

If you choose to take Vioxx you should expect there might be side effects.

Maybe. Unless the drug company did provide all the necessary information for an informed choice.

Killing somone to compensate for the fact that you are bothered by something YOU were stupid enough to do seems a bit, well, mentally retarded to me.

And if you really want to abort something, abort some part of you. A baby is NOT a part of you - it's a separate person which happens to depend on you for life until it's born. If you use the "it's her body" argument, then technically every mother out there should be able to kill her son or daughter, no matter how old they are, because it's "part of her body".

Until it's able to survive seperately from the mother - it is not entirely a seperate person and it's rights don't necessarily equal the mothers. Otherwise, the mother is nothing more then an incubator. And what about rape?

 

[palerider]

Until it's able to survive seperately from the mother - it is not entirely a seperate person and it's rights don't necessarily equal the mothers. Otherwise, the mother is nothing more then an incubator. And what about rape?

It is separate. No one denys that it is dependent, but being dependent upon a thing does not make you a part of that thing. And as to being "nothing" but an incubator? That sounds like an expression of some sort of personal baggage. We are what we are. Women have entire systems of their bodies dedicated to nurturing a child until it has developed enough to survive in the atmosphere. To reduce such a thing to the term "incubator", I believe, is to demean women terribly.

And again. What has the child done that it shoud forfiet its one and only life. We are, after all, weighing a life time against a period of time that lasts less than a year.

 

[Coyote]

It is separate. No one denys that it is dependent, but being dependent upon a thing does not make you a part of that thing. And as to being "nothing" but an incubator? That sounds like an expression of some sort of personal baggage. We are what we are. Women have entire systems of their bodies dedicated to nurturing a child until it has developed enough to survive in the atmosphere. To reduce such a thing to the term "incubator", I believe, is to demean women terribly.

Something can be both dependent and a part of something else. When it's entire life support is biologically entertwined with the mother's: endocrine, blood, oxygen, when the mother can reabsorb it in times of biological stress (or for unknown reasons) or if fetal problems dictate it -it can not be said to be an entirely seperate being at that point.

Personal baggage? No, but I am what I am, and once it is decided that a woman can have no say concerning what goes on in her body - then, if she is carrying it unwillingly - she is little more then an incubator in that case because the child's rights supercede hers. It is no more personal baggage then your arguments when you appeal to emotion or refer to pregnancy and child birth in matters of "convenience" or "inconvenience".

A child is never a "convenience".

And again. What has the child done that it shoud forfiet its one and only life. We are, after all, weighing a life time against a period of time that lasts less than a year.

I agree. The child has a legitimate case. But...I do not feel it completely nullifies the woman's rights in all cases. If she freely engaged in sex, then she freely took the risk and responsibility for possible pregnancy along with him - and needs to meet those responsibilities. However - if her health is endangered or her life - she has a right to end it (which I think we agreed on as self defense). If she was unwilling and coerced into sex and she does not have the right take steps to end it then she is truely little more then an incubator for those nine months.

 

[bewitched]

if it's legal to kill babies, then it should be legal to kill anyone. just because they can't walk or talk doesn't mean they're deserving of death because you feel inconvenienced by a kid. i feel inconvenienced that i have to work - should that be grounds to make aborting our society legal?

it's not a baby at 8 weeks.
a zygote, yes. baby. no.
some people can't get past that fact.

 

[bewitched]

abortion isn't about the unborn, it's about the woman, who had unprotected sex.
it's about her life.
many times that woman can't afford a child.
many times that woman's life is in danger because she has become pregnant.
many times women are abused because of their pregnancy condition.
the right of protection of women is what the law is about.
and we need that law.

 

[Coyote]

abortion isn't about the unborn, it's about the woman, who had unprotected sex.

No matter how you twist it - pro-lifers make it all about the fetus and pro-choicers make it all about the woman - it's not.

Two lives are involved.

What it comes down to is who's rights take precedence and at what point?

The other factor: unprotected sex. When two people have voluntary sex there is an implicite agreement of both man and woman, to take the risk of pregnancy. It is extremely low with properly used birth control. There is no excuse whatsoever for unprotected sex. Now with rape - that is something completely different.

it's about her life.

and the life she carries.

many times that woman can't afford a child.

Agreed but she, and HE should have thought of that prior to having sex...or there is adoption.

many times that woman's life is in danger because she has become pregnant.

In that case - her rights clearly over-rule what she carries.

many times women are abused because of their pregnancy condition.

That is a good point also...

the right of protection of women is what the law is about.
and we need that law.

I thought it was the right to make one's own decisions regarding one's own body?

By the way, I do not support overturning Roe v Wade - but I support limiting the right to abortion in terms of how late it can be done.

 

[bewitched]

Agreed but she, and HE should have thought of that prior to having sex...or there is adoption.

.

hmmmm.... maybe you don't know.... that's not how sex works all the time.

and if a woman is murdered because she is pregnant (the murder rate is high) then there is no option of adoption. and what if she doesn't want someone else to raise an offspring from her biological being.

only the pregnant woman can make the decision for herself about the pregnancy. no one else.

 

[bewitched]

and the life she carries.

ps. it's not a life until it's birthed.
you carry all kinds of parasites and worms in your body... wanna protect those? boycott Listerine.

 

[bewitched]

further, there are many complications once a woman finds out she is pregnant. how about transgender possibilities in family history, diabetes, other things that weren't pillow talk during the sexual encounter?

and what about Hermaphrodites? would you adopt one?

 

[palerider]

Something can be both dependent and a part of something else. When it's entire life support is biologically entertwined with the mother's: endocrine, blood, oxygen, when the mother can reabsorb it in times of biological stress (or for unknown reasons) or if fetal problems dictate it -it can not be said to be an entirely seperate being at that point.{/quote]

You are mistaken. It is not nearly so intertwined with its mother as you seem to believe. Blood for instance. Often the child has a different type than its mom. Its blood is separate. The endocrine systems are separate as well. The child picks up oxygen and nourishment via an exchange within the placenta, but the child is a separate entity.

Personal baggage? No, but I am what I am, and once it is decided that a woman can have no say concerning what goes on in her body - then, if she is carrying it unwillingly - she is little more then an incubator in that case because the child's rights supercede hers. It is no more personal baggage then your arguments when you appeal to emotion or refer to pregnancy and child birth in matters of "convenience" or "inconvenience".

You have your say before you drop your panties. And I know about the rape, but even then, you have not said what the child has done that its life should be forfiet.

And the right to live supercedes all other rights so long as you are not threatening another's life.

 

[palerider]

it's not a baby at 8 weeks.
a zygote, yes. baby. no.
some people can't get past that fact.

Baby, zygote, infant, toddler, embryo, child, blastocyst, teenager, blastomere, old geezer. All are nouns that we use to describe the same thing. A human being at various stages of his or her life. Using words, even scientific words in an effort to dehumanize a human being so that you can justify denying rights that you take for granted is no different than a racist who uses words like ni$$er in an effort to somehow dehumanize blacks so that he (or she) can feel superior and feel justified in denying rights.