PureX
Well-known member
It's been a long discussion, and you haven't read all the posts. So, of course, you haven't seen what you weren't looking for. But then, you aren't really interested in any logical objections, anyway, are you.
Against abortion and against person-hood?
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
PureX
Well-known member
Everyone grants the right to life. That isn't the issue behind the abortion debate. The issue is that we don't all agree on the exactly how and exactly when that right manifests.
You can argue until you're blue in the face about the "child's right to life" and you won't get anywhere in the debate because that is not the issue being debated. The issue being debated is that there is no consensus about exactly how and when that right to life becomes evident enough that we can use it to deny womenkind the right to choose what happens inside their own bodies.
Until you're willing to face that dilemma, you are not really even in the debate.
glassjester
Well-known member
Just as it was prior to Roe Vs Wade.
And of course it's still murder. The abortionist is the murderer.
The mother is most likely a second victim of: abandonment, relationship abuse, coercion... etc.
While that may very well be true, she is still *the* mother. As a mother of three, I can't for the life of me understand any mother's willingness to dispose of her children. Father's who abandon their role as father to their unborn babies and men who are pro-abortion are also part of the problem.
glassjester
Well-known member
Yes it is. It's the whole issue.
Your right to "choose" anything stops as soon as your "choice" infringes on anyone else's rights.
You'll argue that the unborn child's right to life infringes on the mother's right to choose what happens in her own body. And I'll say that her right to choose what happens in her own body infringes on the child's right to continue being alive, instead of dead.
So two individuals' rights are conflicting, and for 9 months, these two rights are mutually exclusive. One must be infringed upon, for the other to remain.
So what's the best way about it? Side with the mother's right every time? Side with the child's right every time? Flip a coin? What would be best, and why?
/thread
PureX
Well-known member
Like I said, you aren't even in the debate until you understand that it's not a "right to life" debate. It's a debate about exactly when that right to life manifests, and exactly how we can know that it has.
Well, the courts have decided upon a compromise that allows the woman to choose an abortion up until a given point in the development of the fetus, but then protects the fetus' right to life, even inside her body, after that point of development. And they determined that point of demarkation in fetal development by the evidence of it's individual autonomy.
Around the 24th week of fetal development, if the fetus were removed from the mother's body, it could survive independent of her. So it was at that point in the fetus' development that the courts determined that there was enough evidence to grant it 'individual personhood', and therefor the right to keep it's own life.
Before that point in the fetus' development, it cannot survive as an independent being, apart from it's mother's body. And so is then legally considered to be a part of the mother's body, and therefor under her personal and legal control: NOT an independent being warranting the special protections afforded to an individualized 'person'.
You may not like their decision, because it's a compromise. Or you may not like it because it's based on the idea of 'autonomous being'. But since, as a people, we are thoroughly divided on this issue, and because there is no current way to answer the questions that need to be answered to resolve the impasse, I believe a compromise was the only realistic option left to us. And since a compromise would have to allow abortion, up to a point, and then deny it beyond that point, some point of demarkation had to be arrived at. And it seems to me that the physical evidence of autonomy was about the only reasonable determinant available to us at this time.
I expect this will change in the future, and the issue will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. But until then, we've made the compromise.
Last edited:
glassjester
Well-known member
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
logically, it would "manifest" when that life was created :duh:
glassjester
Well-known member
You mean the right to life isn't granted at 20 weeks when the Blue Fairy zaps the baby with her magic wand?
So Pinnochio... lied?
glassjester
Well-known member
When does the baby become a "real boy" ?
Once again you are wrong. Abortion is done for the sole purpose of DEPRIVING the life of an unborn child. The child's right to life is the issue. The mother is *already* alive ... or did you conveniently forget that?
glassjester
Well-known member
Do you agree with the law?
PureX
Well-known member
If I were a woman who found myself pregnant, unexpectedly, I hope I would have the courage to follow through on the pregnancy, even if I were not going to keep the child after it was born.
However, I am not a woman, and even if I were, I would not have the right to dictate to all other women what they should do in a similar circumstance.
None of us actually knows when a human being becomes enough of a human being to be considered and independent person. Which means that whatever we think and feel about it, is an OPINION, and is not a reasonable basis for law. Especially when that law would deny other human beings their right to autonomy over their own bodies, or their right to life.
So it IS AN IMPASSE, regardless of my opinion, or yours. It is an impasse that I do not get to resolve, and cannot resolve fairly, because I do not have the necessary knowledge. But our courts do have the right, and even the obligation to resolve this impasse for us, as best it can. And it has done so, for the time being, via a compromise.
So I respect the court's determination. Just as I have to respect any woman who may choose to deal with a pregnancy in a way I hope I would not choose to. Because I am not God. And because I am not the ruler nor judge of the women of the United States of America (or of the world).
Not it at all, really. I suspect that part of the reaction is the human tendency to assume the best of people and to see in that horrible choice an ignorance or distress that overwhelms something essential in their humanity. It's much the way we look at people who attempt suicide. I suspect that given enough particular facts much of that sentiment, a great deal of the time, would be altered. But in general it's an understandable response.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
so now you're using the language "an independent person"? :chuckle:
a genetically unique human life is created at conception
it isn't "independent" before birth
and it isn't "independent" after birth, not for many years
looks like that language is a non-starter :chuckle:
katiecrna
New member
It is too hard to draw the line with acceptable behavior and unacceptable Behavior if there are person-hood laws.
If a pregnant women smokes, will she is punished? If she drinks alcohol will she? What about coffee? There is no clear line. And also who makes the decision on what that line should be? It sounds like a way to control women.
On another note...
If I tell you to shoot me, and you do... Then you are a murderer.
My point is that... If anyone should be punished it should be the person performing the abortion, they are the ones that are actively killing. It seems like everyone is so quick to blame the mother but I don't hear anything about the people who are actually doing the abortion.
Yes the mother is wrong. But it's the doctor who is actually the murderer so to speak.
If a pregnant women smokes, will she is punished? If she drinks alcohol will she? What about coffee? There is no clear line. And also who makes the decision on what that line should be? It sounds like a way to control women.
On another note...
If I tell you to shoot me, and you do... Then you are a murderer.
My point is that... If anyone should be punished it should be the person performing the abortion, they are the ones that are actively killing. It seems like everyone is so quick to blame the mother but I don't hear anything about the people who are actually doing the abortion.
Yes the mother is wrong. But it's the doctor who is actually the murderer so to speak.