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?
No, I base it off of viability, which is
based off of development. A young child is
viable and in fact already living
independently of another human body; aka
it is not connected to a woman via an
umbilical cord.
Quote:
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.
No, a zygote is not "capable of life" in
the same way that I am discussing. A
zygote is only capable of life inside the
womb. Remove it, and it dies. This trend
continues until the fetus is developed
enough to survive outside the womb. THAT
is what I mean by "capable of life". I
mean life external to the womb.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 03-23-08 11:15am
Eiri
wrote:
No, I base it off of viability, which is
based off of development. A young child is
viable and in fact already living
independently of another human body; aka
it is not connected to a woman via an
umbilical cord.
It's still development, then. You give
more moral value to the life of the more
developed child, so that principle ought
to extend beyond birth as well. You seem
to be adding moral value to young humans
by the pound, as if their weight
determined their value, sort of like gold
or silver.
Eiri
wrote:
No, a zygote is not "capable of life" in
the same way that I am discussing. A
zygote is only capable of life inside the
womb. Remove it, and it dies. This trend
continues until the fetus is developed
enough to survive outside the womb. THAT
is what I mean by "capable of life". I
mean life external to the
womb.
A born human is only "capable of life" in
the proper atmosphere. Remove it and it
dies. So we are not capable of life
external to our atmosphere.
Everyone and every living creature is
dependent upon it's environment for life.
That's just nature. It doesn't/shouldn't
take away from our moral right to life
because we are dependent upon our
surroundings to remain alive.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-23-08 11:45am
yodavater
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
No, I base it off of viability, which is
based off of development. A young child is
viable and in fact already living
independently of another human body; aka
it is not connected to a woman via an
umbilical cord.
It's still development, then. You give
more moral value to the life of the more
developed child, so that principle ought
to extend beyond birth as well. You seem
to be adding moral value to young humans
by the pound, as if their weight
determined their value, sort of like gold
or silver.
Aside from the completely irrelevant thing
you added in the end, why should this
moral issue go past birth? Doesn't it?
Children have different rights than
adults.
I want to go back. Do you understand the
major differences between a 5 week embryo
and a 40 week fetus? Do you understand
that the difference between a newborn and
a 40 week fetus is only the process of
birth? No, that is not the only difference
between a 4 week embryo and a newborn;
there are MANY differences between the
two.
If you do not consider these differences
as paramount in importance, then you're
never going to understand my point of
view.
yodavater
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
No, a zygote is not "capable of life" in
the same way that I am discussing. A
zygote is only capable of life inside the
womb. Remove it, and it dies. This trend
continues until the fetus is developed
enough to survive outside the womb. THAT
is what I mean by "capable of life". I
mean life external to the
womb.
A born human is only "capable of life" in
the proper atmosphere. Remove it and it
dies. So we are not capable of life
external to our
atmosphere.
That would be why we live on earth,
dearie. We are not connected to a sentient
being by an umbilical cord. We are
independent.
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.
Yes, we do make personal choices every day
of our life, but this debate revolves
around one particular personal choice: the
choice of whether or not to have an
abortion, and all of the loaded feelings
that come with it. Not the personal choice
to eat carrots instead of peas, a ham
sandwich instead of a cheese sandwich, or
to wear a pink skirt instead of a blue
one. Please, stop acting so dense.
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
end 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.[/quote]
In the abortion debate, nothing is
'universally' right or wrong, which is why
arguments persist and many politicians,
for example, would sooner avoid discussing
it. It is called an "issue of conscience" for a very for a
very fair reason. In such cases, the only
rational 'universally' right notion is
that there can be no universal right or
wrong, and every individual should have
the right to determine what lives in and
off his/her own body. It is not really a
matter of me proclaiming that "Every
person should have the right to apply
his/her own bodily law onto him/herself",
but rather that this is the only sensible
ideology in a debate of subjectivity and
personal morality. Why do you struggle
with this concept?
yodavater
wrote:
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.
They are slightly metaphorical. The former
represents anti-abortionism and the later
pro-abortionism.
yodavater
wrote:
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.
That's your argument.
Mine isn't. Back to what you have
persisted throughout, my stance on
abortion is subjective, and neither right
nor wrong, exactly as is yours. Therefore,
how can you claim to be an egalitarian
when you place your own personal,
individual, subjective viewpoint, which is
of the same 'worth', as it were, as mine,
in a higher, unequal position, foisting it
upon all citizens willy-nilly by law? This
is not egalitarian. Very few things are
now. I would argue that equality lies more
in my stance: in a nutshell, you can have
an abortion if you so choose, and you
don't have to if you don't wish to. I'm a
moral libertarian, and believe that
abortion should be totally foreign to any
legal discussion - it should be fully
emancipated in order to provide social
egalitarianism.
Now, I will ask you again: why do you have
an innate moral right to foist your personal, subjective,
individualist opinion onto me? Your
views are not consistent with your
self-styled egalitarian stance.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-24-08 09:07am
We've had a pretty good discussion over
the past few days. Thank you, Yoda!
|
oopoopoop
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Posts: 1492 Location: ,
Thanks: 75
Thanked:5
Posted: 03-25-08 09:38am
The fact remains that the number of
abortions carried out after 20 weeks for
reasons other than for the health of the
woman or due to fetal abnormality, ie for
what you would call "social reasons" is
tiny. The fact is that most women who
discover an unwanted pregnancy and decide
to abort will do so as quickly as
possible. So in order to look at this
question rationally, you actually have to
consider WHY someone would be pregnant for
five months and want an abortion. Some
possibilities are:
1) They discover the pregnancy very late
-- it is possible to have virtually no
symptoms, especially if you normally have
erratic periods anyway. Scenario: four
months after a one-night stand, a woman
suddenly realises she is pregnant. She is
horrified, and she wants it out. You say
no?
2) They wanted an abortion right away, but
were impeded from obtaining one -- no
easily accessible clinic, parent or
partner intimidation, whatever. Scenario:
The fifteen year old daughter of religious
parents gets pregnant. They refuse to let
her out of the house, and plan on making
her give it up for adoption. They berate
her and call her vile names, and tell her
she is going to hell. After four months,
she escapes from the house and wants an
abortion. You say no?
3) Significant change in circumstances: eg
abandonment by partner. Scenario: a woman
with a 12 year old daughter remarries. At
23 weeks of pregnancy, she discovers that
her new husband has been sexually abusing
her daughter. She leaves him and wants to
abort. You say no?
4) Mental health issues. Many women with
psychiatric problems discontinue their
medication while pregnant, which can
result in a major relapse of symptoms.
Scenario: Woman has unprotected sex and
gets pregnant. At first she is happy about
this. She stops taking her medication, and
becomes increasingly convinced that she is
carrying a demon. She wants to abort to
save the world from evil. You say no?
Probably any other number of reasons --
but each one will be very individual. In
any case, the idea that someone else gets
to decide that you MUST continue with an
unwanted pregnancy is totally repugnant to
me.
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:111
Posted: 03-25-08 10:53am
meblonde01
wrote:
Moo
wrote:
poopoopoo
wrote:
Eiri
wrote:
As I have stated on other
topics, I do not believe the labels are as
black and white as everyone wants them to
be. A lot more pro-choicers would be
willing to admit "Well, actually, I don't
like abortion for this reason or at this
time" if they weren't scared of people
screaming at them and calling them
anti-choice.
It is possible to not like abortion for
this reason or that reason, but still
accept that it is a CHOICE that someone
may make. It is possible to not approve of
or like any reason at all for an abortion,
but accept that it is the choice of the
woman and no one else to make the
decision.
I agree with this 100% and this is my own
stance on abortion.
However, I do realise what Eiri is saying,
everyone's beliefs are different - I am
unconditionally pro-choice (not extremist
but always the choice of the woman while
she is pregnant, whether I personally
'like' it or not) where as I see Eiri as a
somewhat conditionalist pro-choice (i.e.
always the right of the woman but not
believing she should be able to choose for
'social' reasons after a certain point).
Just as I understand the pro-life view I
also understand that of those who aren't
unconditionally pro-choice.
This may not make sense, I have had very
little sleep recently with a newborn lol
congrads moo.. what did you
have?
A girl, despite being told at my 20 week
scan it was a boy lol
|
goche21
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 Posts: 7
Posted: 03-26-08 10:05am
I'm not pro-choice because it's not about
the rights of the mother and baby. It's
about the life's involved. Oh and before
you start throwing the 'what if she was
raped, or her life is in danger' I would
like to point out that this applies to
healthy 'mothers' who had consensual sex.
A woman can do with her body whatever she
choices, and it's no place for anyone to
judge her, to an extent. Whenever she
crosses the line between things that
affect her, and things that affect others
that's when the government should step in.
When a woman gets pregnant is the best
example of this, she choose to have sex,
knowing that even with protection she
could get pregnant. She choose to ignore
this risk and have sex anyway. Now there
are two lives in the mix, the mother's,
and the child's.
On one side you have the mother, who has
unlimited choices. She can choose to have
the baby, raise it, and love it. She can
choose to have it, give it up for adoption
and go about her life as if it never
happened. She could choose to have an open
adoption so that she could give it to a
family, but be able to be a part of her
child's life later. Or, she could choose
to destroy it and go on as if it had never
happened at all. Many women choose this
last one, they don't want to take
responsibility for the life that they
willingly created.
There is no side for the baby. It's not
considered life because it doesn't have a
human form, because it can't survive
outside of its mothers womb. Its life is
degraded, and demeaned, called a parasite.
This, despite the fact that everyone here
was a fetus before. Despite the fact that
demeaning a life in this way demeans all
life.
Basically what I'm trying to say is when a
woman has sex she knows she could get
pregnant, the bottom line is that she
doesn't care because she wants to do what
she wants to do, and screw the
consequences, she has a way out anyway.
I'm pro-FIRST choice.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4144 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 159
Thanked:16
Posted: 03-26-08 10:42am
goche21
wrote:
I'm not pro-choice because
it's not about the rights of the mother
and baby. It's about the life's involved.
Oh and before you start throwing the 'what
if she was raped, or her life is in
danger' I would like to point out that
this applies to healthy 'mothers' who had
consensual sex.
A woman can do with her body whatever she
choices, and it's no place for anyone to
judge her, to an extent. Whenever she
crosses the line between things that
affect her, and things that affect others
that's when the government should step in.
When a woman gets pregnant is the best
example of this, she choose to have sex,
knowing that even with protection she
could get pregnant. She choose to ignore
this risk and have sex anyway. Now there
are two lives in the mix, the mother's,
and the child's.
On one side you have the mother, who has
unlimited choices. She can choose to have
the baby, raise it, and love it. She can
choose to have it, give it up for adoption
and go about her life as if it never
happened. She could choose to have an open
adoption so that she could give it to a
family, but be able to be a part of her
child's life later. Or, she could choose
to destroy it and go on as if it had never
happened at all. Many women choose this
last one, they don't want to take
responsibility for the life that they
willingly created.
There is no side for the baby. It's not
considered life because it doesn't have a
human form, because it can't survive
outside of its mothers womb. Its life is
degraded, and demeaned, called a parasite.
This, despite the fact that everyone here
was a fetus before. Despite the fact that
demeaning a life in this way demeans all
life.
Basically what I'm trying to say is when a
woman has sex she knows she could get
pregnant, the bottom line is that she
doesn't care because she wants to do what
she wants to do, and screw the
consequences, she has a way out anyway.
I'm pro-FIRST
choice.
Welcome to the forum!
Women do not consent to pregnancy when
they have sex (unless they are trying to
conceive, of course); they consent to the
sexual act alone.
No woman is free to have a child unless
she is also free to abort it.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-26-08 10:55am
This whole pro-choice concept that
pro-lifers want to oppress women seems
pretty nonsensical and fanatical to me.
Just about as fanatical as any other
"slippery slope" theory. If we don't
invade Korea, it's a slippery slope
towards communism taking over. If we don't
ban gay marriage, it's a slippery slope
towards incest and bestiality being legal.
If we don't keep abortion legal in
absolutely every case, it's a slippery
slope towards women loosing all of their
rights.
Those all sound like the voice of a
fanatic to me.
|
goche21
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 26 Mar 2008 Posts: 7
Posted: 03-26-08 10:59am
Birch
wrote:
goche21
wrote:
I'm not pro-choice because
it's not about the rights of the mother
and baby. It's about the life's involved.
Oh and before you start throwing the 'what
if she was raped, or her life is in
danger' I would like to point out that
this applies to healthy 'mothers' who had
consensual sex.
A woman can do with her body whatever she
choices, and it's no place for anyone to
judge her, to an extent. Whenever she
crosses the line between things that
affect her, and things that affect others
that's when the government should step in.
When a woman gets pregnant is the best
example of this, she choose to have sex,
knowing that even with protection she
could get pregnant. She choose to ignore
this risk and have sex anyway. Now there
are two lives in the mix, the mother's,
and the child's.
On one side you have the mother, who has
unlimited choices. She can choose to have
the baby, raise it, and love it. She can
choose to have it, give it up for adoption
and go about her life as if it never
happened. She could choose to have an open
adoption so that she could give it to a
family, but be able to be a part of her
child's life later. Or, she could choose
to destroy it and go on as if it had never
happened at all. Many women choose this
last one, they don't want to take
responsibility for the life that they
willingly created.
There is no side for the baby. It's not
considered life because it doesn't have a
human form, because it can't survive
outside of its mothers womb. Its life is
degraded, and demeaned, called a parasite.
This, despite the fact that everyone here
was a fetus before. Despite the fact that
demeaning a life in this way demeans all
life.
Basically what I'm trying to say is when a
woman has sex she knows she could get
pregnant, the bottom line is that she
doesn't care because she wants to do what
she wants to do, and screw the
consequences, she has a way out anyway.
I'm pro-FIRST
choice.
Welcome to the forum!
Women do not consent to pregnancy when
they have sex (unless they are trying to
conceive, of course); they consent to the
sexual act alone.
No woman is free to have a child unless
she is also free to abort
it.
Thanks ^^ ((Thanks for not flaming me, I
hate debaters who strike below the belt))
Every action has consequences, to engage
in the activity and deny the possible
outcomes is hypocritical. To quote a very
old saying "finish what you started".
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4144 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 159
Thanked:16
Posted: 03-26-08 12:57pm
Eiri
wrote:
This whole pro-choice
concept that pro-lifers want to oppress
women seems pretty nonsensical and
fanatical to me.
While it may not be a desire of many
prolife advocates, it is most certainly an
outcome, and... --->
goche21
wrote:
Thanks ^^ ((Thanks for not
flaming me, I hate debaters who strike
below the belt))
Every action has consequences, to engage
in the activity and deny the possible
outcomes is hypocritical. To quote a very
old saying "finish what you
started".
You're welcome. I'll pull
out the horns and pitchfork later!
I agree that every action has
consequences. That does not mean a woman
should be denied a way to resolve the
consequences.
I generally dislike analogies, but there
are many applicable to this concept. If
one has caused a car accident, which one
knew could happen, ones does not forfeit
appropriate medical care and/or other
options for their treatment.
Taking responsibility for a pregnancy can
logically and factually include obtaining
an abortion, as well as giving birth
and/or adoption.
|
Reptar
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 389
Thanks: 44
Thanked:13
Posted: 03-26-08 17:04pm
goche21
wrote:
Every action has consequences, to engage
in the activity and deny the possible
outcomes is hypocritical. To quote a very
old saying "finish what you
started".
I am not, nor do I think is any women,
going to abstain from having sex with my
long term partner just because I don't
want to procreate. Nor will I carry a
child to term that I could care less about
just because someone else wants me to do
it. I'll never deny that I can get
pregnant on birth control, I just realized
it was very unlikely, and that if I did, I
have an legal option that I will choose
each and every time until I'm ready. And
by getting that abortion, I'll be
finishing "what I started" by ensuring
that I have no children until I'm good and
ready.
|
msrosie
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Jan 2005 Posts: 369 Location: Ontario, Canada
Thanks: 12
Thanked:2
Posted: 03-26-08 17:54pm
Amen to that, Reptar! Abortion IS a way of
dealing with unwanted pregnancy, it is
just as valid (or more) as pawning the
child off on others to raise aka adoption.
Myself, I will abort any time I conceive,
I'm not putting my body through the trauma
of gestation and childbirth when I don't
want kids.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2726 Location: ,
Thanks: 19
Thanked:17
Posted: 03-27-08 20:29pm
Yep abortion is a way of dealing with
unwanted pregnancy for some people. For
those who do it just shows the abortive
woman has no moral values when it comes to
respect of human life.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-27-08 21:19pm
nightangel73
wrote:
Yep abortion is a way of
dealing with unwanted pregnancy for some
people. For those who do it just shows the
abortive woman has no moral values when it
comes to respect of human
life.
Nightangel, you have previously been
warned not to say such hateful things. You
callin' my good christian mother an
immoral person!? What about women who are
forced to abort, are they immoral? What
about the woman who is going to die? What
about the rape victim?
Yes, we pull out those cases every single
time a person dares call a woman who
aborts immoral. It disgusts me.
Would I think a woman who aborted in month
8 without a good reason was immoral? Yes.
Week 8? No.
Would I think a woman who aborted without
a good reason 8 times was immoral? Yes.
Heck, not even 8 times. 4 times. It's
disrespectful.
Get on birth control, get better birth
control, or get a hysterectomy. Your
uterus and body is designed to harbor live
and give birth. To repeatedly scrape,
suck, and remove that life is an affront
and an insult to life and to your body. Oh
yes, you have a right to have sex and not
give birth, but I'm sorry... there are
limits. Don't go to extremes in either
direction.
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 434 Location: ,
Thanks: 98
Thanked:55
Posted: 03-27-08 21:51pm
Eiri, I'd love to have a hysterectomy.
Despite chronic pelvic, menstrual and
ovulation pain and despite my choice to be
childfree, the medical community WILL NOT
ALLOW IT. I get tired of having to repeat
to people over and over again that it's
not as simple as a woman going to the
nearest obgyn and requesting sterilization
or removal of problematic plumbing. They
do not respect our health and wishes
enough to do it because they think that
all women should reproduce and want to
deep down. They will let you suffer until
an ongoing problem becomes so serious it
handicaps you. So please spare us the
cavalier solution of "getting fixed".
While you're at it, you may as well accept
that not every woman's body is designed to
harbor life and give birth. I have a
friend who has to have surgery to remove
scar tissue caused by endometriosis so
that she and her husband can have a chance
to conceive. I myself suffer the same
ailment and if I wanted to conceive I
would probably have to do the same as her
and there's still no guarantee. There are
also more women than you realize who have
genetic conditions and health issues that
make pregnancy and birth much more
dangerous than average for them, even if
their plumbing works fine. These women
live in fear every time they have sex and
their husbands would leave them or cheat
if they refused to have sex. Still, they
would have to jump through flaming hoops
in order to get sterilized, even for their
own safety.
Just drop it with the "get fixed" crap.
Believe me, every one of us that either
don't want pregnancy or can't safely carry
one have been trying for most of our lives
to get a doctor to LISTEN TO US and
respect our needs instead of societal
expectations. I'm tired of getting turned
away and I'm tired of ignorant people
assuming all it takes is the expression of
a desire to have the surgery. Take my
uterus, please. I don't want it. If I
could donate every single one of my eggs
to infertile women believe me I
would...they only cause me pain. Don't
you DARE assume we're just recklessly
humping our men without using preventative
measures and without trying to get a
permanent solution.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12984
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-27-08 21:55pm
Don't get angry at me because the medical
community needs reform. Go to them, and
show them. If more women made a fuss, it
would happen.
I would talk to your uterus if I could,
but it wouldn't do any good because all it
wants to do is make another baby; that is
its purpose.
|
Reptar
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 389
Thanks: 44
Thanked:13
Posted: 03-28-08 15:00pm
nightangel73
wrote:
Yep abortion is a way of
dealing with unwanted pregnancy for some
people. For those who do it just shows the
abortive woman has no moral values when it
comes to respect of human
life.
That's very rude. If it were true, we'd
have millions of women (in the US alone)
murdering people on the street. Women who
abort are put into situations where they
may have no other viable option. I have
plenty respect for a human life, I just
have none for an unwanted 6 week old
fertilized egg.
damn,
someone is dense as @$*#.. 
thanks!
