C-section. I meant vaginal
delivery when I said "giving birth".
In many late term abortions that have been
approved by a team of doctors, the fetus
is actually delivered partially and then
has the skull collapsed (Intact Dilation
and Extraction aka D&E) so there can
be a body for the parents to mourn -
because most of the time, that child is
wanted and is removed in a fatal way only
because it absolutely must be done that
way. The non-scientific name for this
procedure is partial-birth, and I honestly
can't understand what the fuss is about
that name, since that is literally what
happens. The fetus is partially given
birth to, killed, and then removed.
D&E is safer for the mother than other
forms of late-term abortions.
My point in this is that if you're having
a late-term abortion, you're very likely
to give birth half way in the first place.
Why are you so offended by the thought of
delivering that child ALIVE? Be induced at
7 months if you've grown bored or
whatever. Again, remember, there are
always exceptions and I am not talking
about them. I am talking about a woman who
has no excuse.
Just not wanting to be pregnant anymore
isn't an excuse. I'm pretty sure most
full-term women want that baby OUT! You
don't see them having abortions.
I can think of a lot of GOOD reasons to
have a late-term abortion. In fact, I
think there are many good reasons, so why
are you so offended by having to state WHY
you want to kill a viable human being?
murderers are always asked
"why" they did it. In some cases, they
actually get set free because their reason
is good enough.
As I know it, right now, ALL late-term
abortions are done for damn good reasons.
I hope, I pray, that the law never changes
in regards to
that.
Hmm. Eiri, I understand your opinion and
even share some of it, and I'm sure you
understand that you share a 'prolife party
line' (my opinion should be law) so let's
move on; and consider that being an
advocate for restrictive abortion laws
creates an allowance for the 'slippery
slope' and lets prolife advocates get a
better foothold in restricting all
abortions.
How do you reconcile this?
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-22-08 09:09am
By saying what I've been saying: the
"sides" in this debate are grayer than
anyone is willing to admit. I don't have to
like or approve of late term abortions and
I certainly don't have to want for them to
be legal in order to be pro-choice. Saying
that the ONLY way to be pro-choice is to
require ALL abortions be legal no matter
what is a very narrow point of view.
Having such a narrow point of view makes
you incapable of compromise, which in my
opinion is an incredible weakness.
Secondly, because you are unwilling to
compromise or even to consider compromise,
you are completely incapable of having a
peaceful or logical discussion with a
pro-lifer because you believe nearly every
word coming from their mouth is
ridiculous.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4146 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 159
Thanked:16
Posted: 03-22-08 09:31am
Incapable or unwilling of compromise?
If one believes that the unwillingness to
compromise is a weakness, then perhaps
they has never felt passionately about an
idealogical value.
You start compromising women's rights to
make their own personal medical decisions
and you suddenly will have a mess in your
lap.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-22-08 09:40am
I belief pro-choice is just unwilling to
compromise, as there are many places
compromise could happen. Just remember,
while you may not get exactly what you
want, neither does the other side. You get
a little, they get a little. You can view
that as everyone is unhappy, or, everyone
is happy.
Perhaps I never have felt "passionately"
about an ideal; except that I bothered to
go and make a painting about being
pro-choice and am now extremely depressed
it didn't get into an art show at my
college. Perhaps I've never felt
passionately about gay rights, except that
I will stand up to my mother and anyone
else who is homophobic and call them that
to their faces. Maybe I'm not passionate
about the military either, except that
insulting it is one of the few things that
will set me off immediately into a rage,
I'm considering joining myself, and I
broke up with my fiancee/boyfriend of 3
years over this issue.
Yeah, I ain't passionate 'bout nothin'.
So again. Before any of you dare call me
anti-choice or "slightly pro-life" or not
passionate about this issue, or how I
should think in order to be "pro-choice",
just step back and stop. Do you actually
think I'd be so offended about being
called "slightly pro-life" or that I have
"pro-life thoughts" if I wasn't
passionate!?!?
Seriously.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-22-08 10:01am
Kypros
wrote:
And no, the foetus has not
"earned" the right to life. It is not a
right that is earned. It is given based on certain
criteria, none of which even the late-term
foetus possesses.
Yeah, that's pretty much how it works.
The thing is, everyone has their own set
of "criteria" for awarding the right to
life. For me, nothing more than
membership in the human species is
required. Your results may vary.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-22-08 10:05am
Eiri
wrote:
Just remember, while you may not get
exactly what you want, neither does the
other side. You get a little, they get a
little. You can view that as everyone is
unhappy, or, everyone is happy.
.
Funny thing about the "sides" in this
debate.... I see them differently than a
lot of people do. I see the two sides as
being the babies on one side, and the
women (and men) who want to kill them on
the other side. So far, the side with the
big people on it is winning in a lopsided
manner. And the babies that still get
killed even after a "compromise" is
reached don't win a darn thing.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-22-08 10:09am
You have a very weird view Yoda lol, and I
mean that in the nicest way possible XD
But I do not view the unborn for the most
part as an actual born baby - only once it
is viable. Before then, it is a fetus or
an embryo and that's it.
Yes, it is an issue of the woman's rights
vs the unborn's rights. Some pro-choicers
want the unborn to never have ANY rights.
Some pro-lifers want the woman to never
have ANY rights in regards to pregnancy
and abortion. I don't think you're among
that camp, Yoda. I think you are ok with
abortion at least in the case of maternal
impending death. But you see, that's a
compromise!! Pro-life is willing, yet
pro-choice is not.
And no, the foetus has not
"earned" the right to life. It is not a
right that is earned. It is given based on certain
criteria, none of which even the late-term
foetus possesses.
Yeah, that's pretty much how it works.
The thing is, everyone has their own set
of "criteria" for awarding the right to
life. For me, nothing more than
membership in the human species is
required. Your results may
vary.
Thank you for yet again supporting the
pro-choice rationale. Your
criteria are belonging to the human
species, therefore you would never abort;
my
criteria are birth, therefore I would
abort if I felt it necessary. This is
called making personal choices about
issues that concern us as individuals and
us alone.
Secondly, the criteria I was speaking of
is to do with the law. The law's criteria
for human rights are physical independence
and discreteness, which are given at
birth.
Eiri, you say that you don't think
foetuses should have the right to usurp
their hostesses' bodily autonomy, but just
the right to be protected from being
killed: I'm afraid that having the right
not to be killed jeopardises bodily
autonomy, as the mother cannot do
everything she chooses with her own body.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-22-08 10:40am
Eiri
wrote:
But I do not view the unborn for the most
part as an actual born baby - only once it
is viable. Before then, it is a fetus or
an embryo and that's it.
.
Obviously, an unborn baby is not a born
baby.... one is born and the other is not.
But that's the only real difference,
aside from age, size, and development.
And they ARE fetuses and embryos, that's
true. But there's not logical reason to
say "that's it".... because we have no
authority to limit what labels may
properly be used to describe them. So
long as the label we use conforms to the
criteria given in dictionary definitions,
they are valid labels to use.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-22-08 10:43am
Kypros
wrote:
Thank you for yet again supporting the
pro-choice rationale. Your
criteria are belonging to the human
species, therefore you would never abort;
my
criteria are birth, therefore I would
abort if I felt it necessary. This is
called making personal choices about
issues that concern us as individuals and
us alone.
You know, this "choice" thing is greatly
misunderstood. We all have choices, at
all times. We can choose to kill or not
to kill, whether that killing is legal or
not. So "personal choice" is really a
meaningless term, since we all choose what
we do or don't do, at all times.
Kypros
wrote:
Secondly, the criteria I was speaking of
is to do with the law. The law's criteria
for human rights are physical independence
and discreteness, which are given at
birth.
True, but those are the criteria given the
unborn by seven (four, really) old men in
black robes, so it's still arbitrary and
subjective. Being legal does not make
something right or wrong.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-22-08 10:47am
yodavater
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
But I do not view the unborn for the most
part as an actual born baby - only once it
is viable. Before then, it is a fetus or
an embryo and that's it.
.
Obviously, an unborn baby is not a born
baby.... one is born and the other is not.
But that's the only real difference,
aside from age, size, and
development.
I believe the developmental differences
are actually the biggest and very real
differences in this issue. The difference
between a 4 week embryo and a 40 week
fetus is astronomical; the difference
between a 40 week fetus and a born baby is
the act of labor and birth. That's it.
Quote:
And they ARE
fetuses and embryos, that's true. But
there's not logical reason to say "that's
it".... because we have no authority to
limit what labels may properly be used to
describe them. So long as the label we
use conforms to the criteria given in
dictionary definitions, they are valid
labels to
use.
Why is that not a logical reason? Why do
we not have the authority?
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-22-08 11:05am
Eiri
wrote:
I believe the developmental differences
are actually the biggest and very real
differences in this issue. The difference
between a 4 week embryo and a 40 week
fetus is astronomical; the difference
between a 40 week fetus and a born baby is
the act of labor and birth. That's it.
All very true, they are real differences.
To equate them somehow to the very basic
right to life is a horrendous stretch to
me, however.
Eiri
wrote:
Why is that not a logical reason? Why do
we not have the
authority?
Because no one in our society has the
authority to limit the words/labels used
by other people. Not only do we have
freedom of speech, we also have freedom of
word usage. Whatever usages we make of
words on a regular basis become
"legitimate" simply by our usage.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4146 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 159
Thanked:16
Posted: 03-22-08 11:20am
Eiri
wrote:
I belief pro-choice is just
unwilling to compromise, as there are many
places compromise could happen. Just
remember, while you may not get exactly
what you want, neither does the other
side. You get a little, they get a little.
You can view that as everyone is unhappy,
or, everyone is happy.
Perhaps I never have felt "passionately"
about an ideal; except that I bothered to
go and make a painting about being
pro-choice and am now extremely depressed
it didn't get into an art show at my
college. Perhaps I've never felt
passionately about gay rights, except that
I will stand up to my mother and anyone
else who is homophobic and call them that
to their faces. Maybe I'm not passionate
about the military either, except that
insulting it is one of the few things that
will set me off immediately into a rage,
I'm considering joining myself, and I
broke up with my fiancee/boyfriend of 3
years over this issue.
Yeah, I ain't passionate 'bout nothin'.
So again. Before any of you dare call me
anti-choice or "slightly pro-life" or not
passionate about this issue, or how I
should think in order to be "pro-choice",
just step back and stop. Do you actually
think I'd be so offended about being
called "slightly pro-life" or that I have
"pro-life thoughts" if I wasn't
passionate!?!?
Seriously.
I merely suggested that if one believes it
is a weakness to be
unwillingness to compromise, then perhaps
they has never felt passionately about an
idealogical value.
I am not willing to compromise my right to
make my own personal medical decisions-are
you? I do not view this as a weakness.
I'm sorry your painting didn't make it in
the art show. It was very good.
yodavater
wrote:
Funny thing about the "sides" in this
debate.... I see them differently than a
lot of people do. I see the two sides as
being the babies on one side, and the
women (and men) who want to kill them on
the other side. So far, the side with the
big people on it is winning in a lopsided
manner. And the babies that still get
killed even after a "compromise" is
reached don't win a darn
thing.
Here is why there is no compromise. ^ We
aren't even 'arguing' the same thing.
Prolife advocates twist the prochoice
idealogy into babies versus people who
want to kill them, instead of people who
want women to have choices and those who
do not.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-22-08 12:26pm
yodavater
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
I believe the developmental differences
are actually the biggest and very real
differences in this issue. The difference
between a 4 week embryo and a 40 week
fetus is astronomical; the difference
between a 40 week fetus and a born baby is
the act of labor and birth. That's it.
All very true, they are real differences.
To equate them somehow to the very basic
right to life is a horrendous stretch to
me, however.
Why, though? It seems like a perfectly
logical reason to give the right to life
to me.
Quote:
Eiri
wrote:
Why is that not a logical reason? Why do
we not have the
authority?
Because no one in our society has the
authority to limit the words/labels used
by other people. Not only do we have
freedom of speech, we also have freedom of
word usage. Whatever usages we make of
words on a regular basis become
"legitimate" simply by our
usage.
I don't really think the words matter
here. The legality does, and no matter
what you call it, baby, fetus, piano,
whatever... it is not worth of life until
it is capable of life.
Thank you for yet again supporting the
pro-choice rationale. Your
criteria are belonging to the human
species, therefore you would never abort;
my
criteria are birth, therefore I would
abort if I felt it necessary. This is
called making personal choices about
issues that concern us as individuals and
us alone.
You know, this "choice" thing is greatly
misunderstood. We all have choices, at
all times. We can choose to kill or not
to kill, whether that killing is legal or
not. So "personal choice" is really a
meaningless term, since we all choose what
we do or don't do, at all
times.
Personal choice is far from a meaningless
term. It is what drives me on in the
abortion debate. It is this so-called
meaningless personal choice that riles
pro-lifers. It's at the core of the
abortion debate. To call it meaningless in
the sphere of debating abortion is akin to
saying God is a random, rather forgettable
inclusion into Christianity.
yodavater
wrote:
Kypros
wrote:
Secondly, the criteria I was speaking of
is to do with the law. The law's criteria
for human rights are physical independence
and discreteness, which are given at
birth.
True, but those are the criteria given the
unborn by seven (four, really) old men in
black robes, so it's still arbitrary and
subjective. Being legal does not make
something right or
wrong.
So what on Earth are you debating for or
wanting? Where does your own arbitrary and
subjective "aborting foetuses is morally
wrong" fit into the equation? How can you
defend your stance on the legality of
abortion whilst attacking your opponents
on the very same logic? Your a one-man
enigma machine, yoda. I don't give a sh*t
whether abortion is right or wrong. Right
and wrong are arbitrary and subjective
concepts at the nd of the day, are they
not? In which case the law stays totally
out of the discussion and allows each
individual to make his/her own rules on
what s/he individually considers right or
wrong, moral or immoral. This links back
to the subject-intrinsic personal choice I would
really like you to actually support your
view in lieu of defaming mine. I don't
think I've seen you do that, to be
honest.
Why should the arbitrary, subjective
"Humanity means we all should have the
right to life" usurp the "Somatic
independence and discreteness means we
should all have the right to life", the
latter of which is supported worldwide and
is accepted to be the most vital part of
the foundation of human rights?
|
nmangelfire
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Mar 2008 Posts: 20 Location: ,
Posted: 03-23-08 02:51am
What are your opinions on my initial post?
I am quite curious of what others
think....
|
nmangelfire
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 15 Mar 2008 Posts: 20 Location: ,
Posted: 03-23-08 02:56am
By the way, how the hell do you quote only
specific sentences or paragraphs?? When I try
to quote, I end up getting the whole damn
posting... ugh..
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-23-08 07:15am
Eiri
wrote:
Why, though? It seems like a perfectly
logical reason to give the right to life
to me.
Size, age, and development? If that seems
like a valid criteria for allowing the
"right to life", then you must think that
older kids have more "right to life" than
younger kids, right?
Eiri
wrote:
I don't really think the words matter
here. The legality does, and no matter
what you call it, baby, fetus, piano,
whatever... it is not worth of life until
it is capable of
life.
Yes, words do matter. But you're right
that they don't change the nature of the
thing being labeled, a rose by any other
name... etc. They only affect our
perception of the thing being labeled.
Anything that is living is "capable of
life". A human zygote is "capable of
life", just like a newborn is "capable of
life", as long as it's kept in a
supportive environment and supplied with
nutrients.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-23-08 07:26am
Kypros
wrote:
Personal choice is far from a meaningless
term. It is what drives me on in the
abortion debate. It is this so-called
meaningless personal choice that riles
pro-lifers. It's at the core of the
abortion debate.
As I explained, it is meaningless in this
debate to me, because it does not describe
anything unique. We all make choices all
the time, and whether a choice is legal or
not doesn't take away our ability to
choose it. It only affects whether or not
there are legal repercussions to that
choice.
Kypros
wrote:
I don't give a sh*t whether abortion is
right or wrong. Right and wrong are
arbitrary and subjective concepts at the
nd of the day, are they
not?
Yes, in a personal sense they are
subjective. That, however, does not mean
that there is no universal "right or
wrong", it simply means that we do not
have any direct access to such universal
standards. It means that we must struggle
with our biased and flawed perceptions of
right or wrong as best we can, and try to
do what we think is "universally" right.
Kypros
wrote:
Why should the arbitrary, subjective
"Humanity means we all should have the
right to life" usurp the "Somatic
independence and discreteness means we
should all have the right to life", the
latter of which is supported worldwide and
is accepted to be the most vital part of
the foundation of human
rights?
I'm not familiar with the arguments you
mention, so I'm unable to distinguish
between them. My argument for the right
to life is that none of us are so
"superior" to anyone else that they are
endowed with a moral right to take away
someone else's life (in innocence). In
other words, I'm egalitarian, and I don't
think that equals have the right to rob
other equals of their life without just
cause.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-23-08 07:28am
nmangelfire
wrote:
By the way, how the hell do
you quote only specific sentences or
paragraphs?? When I try
to quote, I end up getting the whole damn
posting... ugh..
Yes, that's how it works. When you get
the whole thing, you then delete the parts
that are irrelevant to you, and respond to
what's left. Kind of like sculpture is
just chipping away the parts that don't
belong there, you know?
When I try
to quote, I end up getting the whole damn
posting... ugh..