When it can exist outside of someone
else's body without draining that person's
physical and emotional nutrients, it is
officially a human person under the law.
You can't give fetuses equal rights to
born humans without taking equal rights
away from women. How is the bartender
supposed to know whether I'm pregnant or
not just by looking at me? If you
(general "you" meaning prolife advocates)
force laws that amend a fetus "equal"
rights to the woman carrying it, you take
away all basic human rights of women
(including me, and I take that
personally).
I won't stand for some sanctimonious
woman-hater telling me I can't use birth
control because he/she has been convinced
that his/her god is against women choosing
not to be broodmares now. I will not only
report them for gender discrimination and
obstruction of valid medical requirements,
but I will (and have) report their
employers for paying them to refuse me
medical treatment on gender-biased
grounds.
What makes you and your arrogant,
slavery-advocating ilk (Those who are
against all abortions as well as birth
control and restricting female rights
based on reproductive status) believe I'll
stand for a bartender refusing me a drink
I pay for on the grounds that I'm female
and therefore could be pregnant?
There is no "equality" in promoting human
personal rights to a fetus, because in
order to do so, you would have to demote
women to the status of lesser incubators.
While I am sure many prolifers have no
issue with dehumanizing the females of our
species, they are (thank goddess) only few
in number and were better suited to Hitler
mentality.
Embryo- fetus- baby-person
all are the same..it refers to the same
human being in diferent development
stages. But you can say that in legal
terms person is when it's
born.
Except that it's not technically a human
being until birth. Human, yes, being, not
yet. A "being" is a stand-alone entity.
|
Rosierose
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 Posts: 13
Posted: 06-29-08 12:21pm
Darkmoon
wrote:
When it can exist outside of
someone else's body without draining that
person's physical and emotional nutrients,
it is officially a human person under the
law.
You can't give fetuses equal rights to
born humans without taking equal rights
away from women. How is the bartender
supposed to know whether I'm pregnant or
not just by looking at me? If you
(general "you" meaning prolife advocates)
force laws that amend a fetus "equal"
rights to the woman carrying it, you take
away all basic human rights of women
(including me, and I take that
personally).
I won't stand for some sanctimonious
woman-hater telling me I can't use birth
control because he/she has been convinced
that his/her god is against women choosing
not to be broodmares now. I will not only
report them for gender discrimination and
obstruction of valid medical requirements,
but I will (and have) report their
employers for paying them to refuse me
medical treatment on gender-biased
grounds.
What makes you and your arrogant,
slavery-advocating ilk (Those who are
against all abortions as well as birth
control and restricting female rights
based on reproductive status) believe I'll
stand for a bartender refusing me a drink
I pay for on the grounds that I'm female
and therefore could be pregnant?
There is no "equality" in promoting human
personal rights to a fetus, because in
order to do so, you would have to demote
women to the status of lesser incubators.
While I am sure many prolifers have no
issue with dehumanizing the females of our
species, they are (thank ) only few
in number and were better suited to
mentality.
For heaven's sake, did I say anything on
here that would be offensive to pro
choicers? All I was doing was asking what
their opinion on this was. Can you all
quit thinking I'm 'getting at something'
just because I'm pro-life?
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3332 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 98
Thanked:159
Posted: 06-29-08 18:02pm
nightangel73
wrote:
Embryo- fetus- baby-person
all are the same..it refers to the same
human being in diferent development
stages. But you can say that in legal
terms person is when it's
born.
Actually medically, scientifically,
legally and in regards to philosophy
person means/accounts for someone who is
sentient/conscious.
The term person is used informally to mean
a human. But in the fields of law,
philosophy, medicine, and others, it means
the presence of certain characteristics
that grant a certain legal, ethical, or
moral standing.
For example, in many jurisdictions, the
law allows a group of human beings to act
together as a single composite entity
called a corporation, and the corporation
is considered a legal person with standing
to sue or be sued in court. In philosophy
and medicine, person may mean only humans
who are capable of certain kinds of
thought, and thus exclude embryos, early
fetuses, or adults with certain types of
brain damage.[1][2]
|
Users who thank diamondsz for this post:
aochrissMoo
aochriss
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 30 Apr 2008 Posts: 709
Thanks: 93
Thanked:172
Posted: 06-29-08 20:44pm
Rosierose
wrote:
For heaven's sake, did I say anything on
here that would be offensive to pro
choicers? All I was doing was asking what
their opinion on this was. Can you all
quit thinking I'm 'getting at something'
just because I'm
pro-life?
Uh, NO.
A pro-life person is actively trying to
take rights away from half of the
population, so NO, I can't quit thinking
you are "getting at something", because by
definition you are.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1180 Location: ,
Thanks: 23
Thanked:13
Posted: 06-30-08 07:51am
Ok.. I am a over 21 adult.
I can drive if I want, drink if I want,
bowl if I want, particpate in sports if I
want, have rare steak if I want, drink
coffee if I want. WHy would I let someone
else dictate their idea of what I should
be doing, as if I was a small child, just
because I was gestating?
Pregnant does not mean helpless or stupid.
My brain functioned just as well pregnant
as not pregnant; I was able to make
rational thought out choices no matter how
big my belly was.
Treating or advocating treating pregnant
women like children is highly offensive to
me. Didn't we get over that about a
centuary or so ago?
For heaven's sake, did I say anything on
here that would be offensive to pro
choicers? All I was doing was asking what
their opinion on this was. Can you all
quit thinking I'm 'getting at something'
just because I'm
pro-life?
Uh, NO.
A pro-life person is actively trying to
take rights away from half of the
population, so NO, I can't quit thinking
you are "getting at something", because by
definition you
are.
And Pro-lifers think you're taking away
the rights of about half the population
too... So we're equal, right?
well sorry, I guess I shouldn't have
signed up then.
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:111
Posted: 06-30-08 10:12am
Rosierose
wrote:
And Pro-lifers think you're
taking away the rights of about half the
population
too...
Being pro-choice doesn't mean you think
every pregnancy shuold be aborted, it
doesn't mean you will abort rather giving
women the right to make their own mind up
about a pregnancy for whatever reason - it
isn't taking rights away from anyone
(since a z/e/f doesn't have any)
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Posts: 8508 Location: Floating on a cloud, United States
Thanks: 213
Thanked:15
Posted: 06-30-08 10:21am
Half the population? Really? That would
mean that every female on this planet is
pregnant, regardless of their age or
ability to procreate. And that's also
assuming every pregnant female on this
planet was being pressured into having an
abortion. You might want to alter that
number in your mind.
Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. It
means the woman has the right to choose
what path she wants to take, whether that
path is parenting, adoption, or a safe
abortion. We're not pressuring anybody to
abort. In fact, abortion is not always the
right choice for many women, and many
pro-choice people here at eHealth have
actively tried to talk these women OUT of
having an abortion. Why would we do that
if we were trying to kill every fetus
that's conceived?
And you haven't answered yet why your
snowstorm scenario involves a MOTHER
neglecting her child. Fathers can care (or
not care) for children too. And
babysitters. And next door neighbors. And
grandparents. And brothers or sisters. Or
adoptive parents. Why is the mother the
villain in your little story?
Half the population? Really?
That would mean that every female on this
planet is pregnant, regardless of their
age or ability to procreate. And that's
also assuming every pregnant female on
this planet was being pressured into
having an abortion. You might want to
alter that number in your mind.
Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. It
means the woman has the right to choose
what path she wants to take, whether that
path is parenting, adoption, or a safe
abortion. We're not pressuring anybody to
abort. In fact, abortion is not always the
right choice for many women, and many
pro-choice people here at eHealth have
actively tried to talk these women OUT of
having an abortion. Why would we do that
if we were trying to kill every fetus
that's conceived?
And you haven't answered yet why your
snowstorm scenario involves a MOTHER
neglecting her child. Fathers can care (or
not care) for children too. And
babysitters. And next door neighbors. And
grandparents. And brothers or sisters. Or
adoptive parents. Why is the mother the
villain in your little
story?
Oops, I got the number wrong.
The villain? I had no intention of making
the mother the villain in the story. Since
I was comparing the story to abortion, and
since it's the mother who chooses to
abort, it's the same thing in the story.
|
Rosierose
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 Posts: 13
Posted: 06-30-08 11:47am
Moo
wrote:
Rosierose
wrote:
And Pro-lifers think you're
taking away the rights of about half the
population
too...
Being pro-choice doesn't mean you think
every pregnancy shuold be aborted, it
doesn't mean you will abort rather giving
women the right to make their own mind up
about a pregnancy for whatever reason - it
isn't taking rights away from anyone
(since a z/e/f doesn't have
any)
Yes, you said it, since the z\e\f doesn't
have any. You don't think it should have
any rights because it isn't completely
developed yet. Where's the logic in that?
|
diamondsz
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 3332 Location: , Candyland-Canada
Thanks: 98
Thanked:159
Posted: 06-30-08 12:28pm
Rosierose
wrote:
Moo
wrote:
Rosierose
wrote:
And Pro-lifers think you're
taking away the rights of about half the
population
too...
Being pro-choice doesn't mean you think
every pregnancy shuold be aborted, it
doesn't mean you will abort rather giving
women the right to make their own mind up
about a pregnancy for whatever reason - it
isn't taking rights away from anyone
(since a z/e/f doesn't have
any)
Yes, you said it, since the z\e\f doesn't
have any. You don't think it should have
any rights because it isn't completely
developed yet. Where's the logic in that?
You cannot give someone with no conscious
rights and then take away rights from a
person with a conscious. If you were to
kill a mother, she would be in complete
agony and the fetus would die, if the
mother did too many drugs, she could
possibly die and so could the fetus.
The difference is that a z/e/f in the
early stages does not have the
capabilities of feeling, of being aware,
how can they fear death if they don't know
what it is, when a person does.
According the our rights, one cannot have
their rights removed therefore a fetus who
has enslaved a woman is breeching every
single one of her rights, so until it is
out of her body it has none and it makes
perfect sense.
For someone who likes to talk a lot of
analogy's and philosophy you are pretty
ignorant.
I could give you some stories that are
real and that are 20 times worse than the
one you provided. For instance a little
girl was dying of something that could be
medically treated but people refused to
give a crap about her, so while I spill my
pockets out not enough people do or else
we wouldnt having a situation where people
had to live like second class citizens.
|
Rosierose
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 Posts: 13
Posted: 06-30-08 13:17pm
diamondsz
wrote:
Rosierose
wrote:
Moo
wrote:
Rosierose
wrote:
And Pro-lifers think you're
taking away the rights of about half the
population
too...
Being pro-choice doesn't mean you think
every pregnancy shuold be aborted, it
doesn't mean you will abort rather giving
women the right to make their own mind up
about a pregnancy for whatever reason - it
isn't taking rights away from anyone
(since a z/e/f doesn't have
any)
Yes, you said it, since the z\e\f doesn't
have any. You don't think it should have
any rights because it isn't completely
developed yet. Where's the logic in that?
You cannot give someone with no conscious
rights and then take away rights from a
person with a conscious. If you were to
kill a mother, she would be in complete
agony and the fetus would die, if the
mother did too many , she could
possibly die and so could the fetus.
The difference is that a z/e/f in the
early stages does not have the
capabilities of feeling, of being aware,
how can they fear if they don't know
what it is, when a person does.
According the our rights, one cannot have
their rights removed therefore a fetus who
has enslaved a woman is breeching every
single one of her rights, so until it is
out of her body it has none and it makes
perfect sense.
For someone who likes to talk a lot of
analogy's and philosophy you are pretty
ignorant.
I could give you some stories that are
real and that are 20 times worse than the
one you provided. For instance a little
was dying of something that could be
medically treated but people refused to
give a crap about her, so while I spill my
pockets out not enough people do or else
we wouldnt having a situation where people
had to live like second class
citizens.
Yep, well, I'm only 15, so I guess I am
pretty ignorant...
What is really at stake is the mother’s
lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s
life. No one has an absolute unconditional
right to a lifestyle. It is always
governed by its effects on others. There
are 1,000’s of restrictions on us
including no-smoking provisions, noise and
zoning ordinances, etc. Finally, is it
reasonable for society to expect an
to live with a temporary inconvenience if
the only alternative is a child?
Choice is a great thing. I passionately
defend a woman's right to choose a career
or schooling or housing or any number of
life avenues. I defend her choice to
decide whether to have , and with whom,
and how often, and whether or not to use
birth control.
But absolute, unhindered choice is not a
guaranteed human right. Think about it:
civil society already tells us that we
cannot "choose" to abuse a child or
"choose" to steal a car. There are legal
consequences to those actions, because
"choosing" to burglarize a home infringes
on the basic liberties of the person who
lives there.
When our right to choose bumps up against
the right of another to exist peacefully,
our choice is blocked by civilized law.
A woman’s right to decide what to do
with her body bumps up against the right
of that baby's right to exist.
A woman's right to choose an abortion
cannot logically co-exist with a
embryo/fetus' right to be born.
Simply put, life trumps choice.
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2132 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 06-30-08 13:48pm
Rosierose
wrote:
diamondsz
wrote:
Rosierose
wrote:
Moo
wrote:
Rosierose
wrote:
And Pro-lifers think you're
taking away the rights of about half the
population
too...
Being pro-choice doesn't mean you think
every pregnancy shuold be aborted, it
doesn't mean you will abort rather giving
women the right to make their own mind up
about a pregnancy for whatever reason - it
isn't taking rights away from anyone
(since a z/e/f doesn't have
any)
Yes, you said it, since the z\e\f doesn't
have any. You don't think it should have
any rights because it isn't completely
developed yet. Where's the logic in that?
You cannot give someone with no conscious
rights and then take away rights from a
person with a conscious. If you were to
kill a mother, she would be in complete
agony and the fetus would die, if the
mother did too many , she could
possibly die and so could the fetus.
The difference is that a z/e/f in the
early stages does not have the
capabilities of feeling, of being aware,
how can they fear if they don't know
what it is, when a person does.
According the our rights, one cannot have
their rights removed therefore a fetus who
has enslaved a woman is breeching every
single one of her rights, so until it is
out of her body it has none and it makes
perfect sense.
For someone who likes to talk a lot of
analogy's and philosophy you are pretty
ignorant.
I could give you some stories that are
real and that are 20 times worse than the
one you provided. For instance a little
was dying of something that could be
medically treated but people refused to
give a crap about her, so while I spill my
pockets out not enough people do or else
we wouldnt having a situation where people
had to live like second class
citizens.
Yep, well, I'm only 15, so I guess I am
pretty ignorant...
What is really at stake is the mother’s
lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s
life. No one has an absolute unconditional
right to a lifestyle. It is always
governed by its effects on others. There
are 1,000’s of restrictions on us
including no-smoking provisions, noise and
zoning ordinances, etc. Finally, is it
reasonable for society to expect an
to live with a temporary inconvenience if
the only alternative is a child?
Choice is a great thing. I passionately
defend a woman's right to choose a career
or schooling or housing or any number of
life avenues. I defend her choice to
decide whether to have , and with whom,
and how often, and whether or not to use
birth control.
But absolute, unhindered choice is not a
guaranteed human right. Think about it:
civil society already tells us that we
cannot "choose" to abuse a child or
"choose" to steal a car. There are legal
consequences to those actions, because
"choosing" to burglarize a home infringes
on the basic liberties of the person who
lives there.
When our right to choose bumps up against
the right of another to exist peacefully,
our choice is blocked by civilized law.
A woman’s right to decide what to do
with her body bumps up against the right
of that baby's right to exist.
A woman's right to choose an abortion
cannot logically co-exist with a
embryo/fetus' right to be born.
Simply put, life trumps
choice.
pretty ignorant?? Not! I think that was
VERY well put!
|
Rosierose
New User, Becoming EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 Posts: 13
Posted: 06-30-08 13:52pm
meblonde01
wrote:
Rosierose
wrote:
diamondsz
wrote:
Rosierose
wrote:
Moo
wrote:
Rosierose
wrote:
And Pro-lifers think you're
taking away the rights of about half the
population
too...
Being pro-choice doesn't mean you think
every pregnancy shuold be aborted, it
doesn't mean you will abort rather giving
women the right to make their own mind up
about a pregnancy for whatever reason - it
isn't taking rights away from anyone
(since a z/e/f doesn't have
any)
Yes, you said it, since the z\e\f doesn't
have any. You don't think it should have
any rights because it isn't completely
developed yet. Where's the logic in that?
You cannot give someone with no conscious
rights and then take away rights from a
person with a conscious. If you were to
kill a mother, she would be in complete
agony and the fetus would die, if the
mother did too many , she could
possibly die and so could the fetus.
The difference is that a z/e/f in the
early stages does not have the
capabilities of feeling, of being aware,
how can they fear if they don't know
what it is, when a person does.
According the our rights, one cannot have
their rights removed therefore a fetus who
has enslaved a woman is breeching every
single one of her rights, so until it is
out of her body it has none and it makes
perfect sense.
For someone who likes to talk a lot of
analogy's and philosophy you are pretty
ignorant.
I could give you some stories that are
real and that are 20 times worse than the
one you provided. For instance a little
was dying of something that could be
medically treated but people refused to
give a crap about her, so while I spill my
pockets out not enough people do or else
we wouldnt having a situation where people
had to live like second class
citizens.
Yep, well, I'm only 15, so I guess I am
pretty ignorant...
What is really at stake is the mother’s
lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s
life. No one has an absolute unconditional
right to a lifestyle. It is always
governed by its effects on others. There
are 1,000’s of restrictions on us
including no-smoking provisions, noise and
zoning ordinances, etc. Finally, is it
reasonable for society to expect an
to live with a temporary inconvenience if
the only alternative is a child?
Choice is a great thing. I passionately
defend a woman's right to choose a career
or schooling or housing or any number of
life avenues. I defend her choice to
decide whether to have , and with whom,
and how often, and whether or not to use
birth control.
But absolute, unhindered choice is not a
guaranteed human right. Think about it:
civil society already tells us that we
cannot "choose" to abuse a child or
"choose" to steal a car. There are legal
consequences to those actions, because
"choosing" to burglarize a home infringes
on the basic liberties of the person who
lives there.
When our right to choose bumps up against
the right of another to exist peacefully,
our choice is blocked by civilized law.
A woman’s right to decide what to do
with her body bumps up against the right
of that baby's right to exist.
A woman's right to choose an abortion
cannot logically co-exist with a
embryo/fetus' right to be born.
Simply put, life trumps
choice.
pretty ignorant?? Not! I think that was
VERY well put!
Thank you!
I actually got the information online.
|
Lilly Ivy
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Aug 2007 Posts: 1685 Location: Newell, WV
Thanks: 65
Thanked:110
Posted: 06-30-08 14:54pm
Rosierose
wrote:
diamondsz
wrote:
Rosierose
wrote:
Moo
wrote:
Rosierose
wrote:
And Pro-lifers think you're
taking away the rights of about half the
population
too...
Being pro-choice doesn't mean you think
every pregnancy shuold be aborted, it
doesn't mean you will abort rather giving
women the right to make their own mind up
about a pregnancy for whatever reason - it
isn't taking rights away from anyone
(since a z/e/f doesn't have
any)
Yes, you said it, since the z\e\f doesn't
have any. You don't think it should have
any rights because it isn't completely
developed yet. Where's the logic in that?
You cannot give someone with no conscious
rights and then take away rights from a
person with a conscious. If you were to
kill a mother, she would be in complete
agony and the fetus would die, if the
mother did too many , she could
possibly die and so could the fetus.
The difference is that a z/e/f in the
early stages does not have the
capabilities of feeling, of being aware,
how can they fear if they don't know
what it is, when a person does.
According the our rights, one cannot have
their rights removed therefore a fetus who
has enslaved a woman is breeching every
single one of her rights, so until it is
out of her body it has none and it makes
perfect sense.
For someone who likes to talk a lot of
analogy's and philosophy you are pretty
ignorant.
I could give you some stories that are
real and that are 20 times worse than the
one you provided. For instance a little
was dying of something that could be
medically treated but people refused to
give a crap about her, so while I spill my
pockets out not enough people do or else
we wouldnt having a situation where people
had to live like second class
citizens.
Yep, well, I'm only 15, so I guess I am
pretty ignorant...
What is really at stake is the mother’s
lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s
life. No one has an absolute unconditional
right to a lifestyle. It is always
governed by its effects on others. There
are 1,000’s of restrictions on us
including no-smoking provisions, noise and
zoning ordinances, etc. Finally, is it
reasonable for society to expect an
to live with a temporary inconvenience if
the only alternative is a child?
Choice is a great thing. I passionately
defend a woman's right to choose a career
or schooling or housing or any number of
life avenues. I defend her choice to
decide whether to have , and with whom,
and how often, and whether or not to use
birth control.
But absolute, unhindered choice is not a
guaranteed human right. Think about it:
civil society already tells us that we
cannot "choose" to abuse a child or
"choose" to steal a car. There are legal
consequences to those actions, because
"choosing" to burglarize a home infringes
on the basic liberties of the person who
lives there.
When our right to choose bumps up against
the right of another to exist peacefully,
our choice is blocked by civilized law.
A woman’s right to decide what to do
with her body bumps up against the right
of that baby's right to exist.
A woman's right to choose an abortion
cannot logically co-exist with a
embryo/fetus' right to be born.
Simply put, life trumps
choice.
I must say, that was pretty well put.
But the point you are making is still
putting the zef first. Ever heard of
'seniority'? Even in simple situations,
that seems to come out of top. Why not a
woman who is having her body invaded by
something she doesn't want there?
Everything happens for a reason, right? If
someone dies, there was a reason, even
though it may not show up for awhile, but
its there. Why not say that an abortion
was meant to happen? Or a homicide? Or an
adoption? Or a child that was born? If
everything happens for a reason, there's a
reason that abortion is an option.
|
Jincks013
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Apr 2007 Posts: 1180 Location: ,
Thanks: 23
Thanked:13
Posted: 06-30-08 14:55pm
Rosierose
wrote:
Moo
wrote:
Rosierose
wrote:
And Pro-lifers think you're
taking away the rights of about half the
population
too...
Being pro-choice doesn't mean you think
every pregnancy shuold be aborted, it
doesn't mean you will abort rather giving
women the right to make their own mind up
about a pregnancy for whatever reason - it
isn't taking rights away from anyone
(since a z/e/f doesn't have
any)
Yes, you said it, since the z\e\f doesn't
have any. You don't think it should have
any rights because it isn't completely
developed yet. Where's the logic in that?
What rights do you wan't to give a
nonsentient mass of human tissue? A birth
certificate? shall we then give birth
certificates an equal rights of an adult
to every fertilized ovum? Whom will get
the job of running around testing tampons
to see when those fertilized eggs that
don't implant are 'born' and do those get
death certificates?
If a pregnant woman goes hiking, falls and
miscarrys do you then intend to require a
full burial for the remains no matter how
far along she is? DO you intend to
prosecute her for going hiking?
What responsibilities and legal
consequences should pregnant women face?
Should Child Protective Services be able
to step in if a pregnant woman does
something that could potentially damage
the fetus — like eat tuna or drink
coffee or exercise heavily?
If a pregnant woman otherwise does harm
to her fetus, should she be prosecuted for
child abuse? Neglect? If she miscarries,
can she be tried for homicide?
The question isn't nearly as black and
white as you'd like to make it.
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Posts: 8508 Location: Floating on a cloud, United States
Thanks: 213
Thanked:15
Posted: 06-30-08 15:37pm
Rosierose
wrote:
Oops, I got the number
wrong.
The villain? I had no intention of making
the mother the villain in the story. Since
I was comparing the story to abortion, and
since it's the mother who chooses to
abort, it's the same thing in the
story.
It's not the same thing though. You're
comparing neglect, abuse and/or homicide
to a medical procedure. Oh, they might be
the same thing in your opinion, but here
in the real world abortion is not
homicide. It would not be legal if it was
classified as such.
A zygote/embryo/fetus is attached to the
mother. It requires her oxygen and
nutrients to survive and thrive. She is
the only person capable of satisfying
this, and her body will literally break
itself down to provide for the unborn
child, no matter what damage it inflicts
upon itself.
A newborn does not require another human
being to breathe for it, with the
exception of a baby with breathing
problems which relies on artificial means
of respiration. And even then, it's not
physically attached to human life support.
A newborn can be given nutrition from
anybody; a nurse, a father, a social
worker, etc. And a newborn baby, even if
it's 5 minutes old, is protected by its
country's laws and is afforded rights.
It is illegal to harm, neglect, or kill a
newborn. It is not illegal to abort a
pregnancy (within the confines of the
law). The comparison you're drawing
between the snowstorm and abortion is
faulty because of these issues.
|
AyaMiyaki
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Posts: 8508 Location: Floating on a cloud, United States
Thanks: 213
Thanked:15
Posted: 06-30-08 15:44pm
Rosierose
wrote:
Yep, well, I'm only 15, so I
guess I am pretty ignorant...
What is really at stake is the mother’s
lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s
life. No one has an absolute unconditional
right to a lifestyle. It is always
governed by its effects on others. There
are 1,000’s of restrictions on us
including no-smoking provisions, noise and
zoning ordinances, etc. Finally, is it
reasonable for society to expect an
to live with a temporary inconvenience if
the only alternative is a child?
Choice is a great thing. I passionately
defend a woman's right to choose a career
or schooling or housing or any number of
life avenues. I defend her choice to
decide whether to have , and with whom,
and how often, and whether or not to use
birth control.
But absolute, unhindered choice is not a
guaranteed human right. Think about it:
civil society already tells us that we
cannot "choose" to abuse a child or
"choose" to steal a car. There are legal
consequences to those actions, because
"choosing" to burglarize a home infringes
on the basic liberties of the person who
lives there.
When our right to choose bumps up against
the right of another to exist peacefully,
our choice is blocked by civilized law.
A woman’s right to decide what to do
with her body bumps up against the right
of that baby's right to exist.
A woman's right to choose an abortion
cannot logically co-exist with a
embryo/fetus' right to be born.
Simply put, life trumps
choice.
You know what the woman has the right to?
A safe abortion performed by trained
professionals. When abortion was illegal,
do you think it never happened? Oh, it
happened... and women died. They DIED.
They were forced to go to back-alley
quacks who used dirty instruments. They
were forced to throw themselves down
staircases, attempt to overdose on
dangerous medications, used coat hangers
and knitting needles on themselves... all
to get rid of a pregnancy they absolutely
did NOT want.
The flaw in your argument (or the argument
you stole off the internet... I'm kind of
confused on that) is assuming that the
unborn child has rights. Under our laws,
it does NOT have rights. It does not have
a legal name, a social security number, a
birth certificate, or any legal
substantiated proof of its existance. The
mother, on the other hand, does. The
mother is a living, breathing, tax-paying
citizen who is protected by the rights of
this country. Her health and freedom are
paramount.
When do the z/e/f's get social security
numbers? How is custody decided? If the
suppostion was true that a fetus is equal
to a post birth person, you or me, how do
we determine child support? When does it
qualify for benefits?
can it legally inherit property prior to
being born? at what stage?
