Here is another heart-wrenching story that will surely offend you pro-choicers out there:
http://www.khon2.com/news/local/6879367.html
Pro-choice or pro-abortion?
This isn't a political story, making it so cheapens it.
How wonderful for her that she lives in a free society that allows her to make such a brave, heart-wrenching choice, that she ultimately has control over her body, and no one can tell her differently.
Certainly not offended. Surprised, yes. She had an obligation to her existing family. But it was her choice. Funny isn't it...she had a choice. Why you think anyone would be offended says more about you than you think.
It doesn't offend me. I support her ... what's it called???? Let me think of the word -- oh yeah, her CHOICE. I applaud her choice and I rejoice in the fact that she has a choice.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Pro-choice or pro-abortion?
This isn't a political story, making it so cheapens it.
I agree with you totally, but that hasn't kept our regular chorus of pro-choicers from chiming in...
Its clear the purpose was not to post the story, but to start a little jab on abortion. So the story is really irrelevant. Did we go over this before?
Oh yeah, we did:
quote:
I wrote in February
Per abortion laws, I give no credence to the religious nor moral arguments for banning abortion. Governments should not be in the business of promoting my, or anyone else's moral or religious code. If they do, it ceases to have any meaning as an act you are forced to do can hardly be seen as a servitude towards your god(s). not to mention the obvious issue of having to decide who's god(s) and morals are the correct ones.
I am also, , generally, against governmental interference on most levels. The ability to interfere is the ability to chose whom to favor and whom to repress and the opportunity to interfere with my constitutionally protected rights.
However, I also feel that any creature capable of thought deserves protection from wantonly unnecessary pain and suffering. This extends from Humans to Chickens to Frogs. Note the wording of "wantonly unnecessary pain," if a chicken has some pain while being slaughtered for consumption - so be it. But if a procedure is offered that accomplishes the same goal without torturing the bird, I would prefer that.
Being alive is defined as having the ability to reproduce on a cellular level. The cells in my nose are able to reproduce as are the cells of the plant on my desk - they are alive. However, the wood cells of my desk are no longer able to divide and are thus, not living. The question is not when does life begin - but when we are going to afford PROTECTION for that life.
The little world of belief's I have created for myself would indicate protection is afforded when a creature can think. In a fetus, that would mean brain functions on the level of being able to react to surroundings with some sort of spacial awareness (I think, therefor I am). However, my argument would only afford this life the same protection I would the chicken without further examination.
Further protection is provided to humans because it is essential to a functioning society. The most ancient of tribal laws provide a good guide for what people have to do in order to live together in a community and not destroy themselves. If we steel from one another, lie in court or kill each other things get ugly (likewise, life is easier if we all worship and believe the exact same thing without question).
In addition to being essential a functioning society we have more recently attributed certain protections to people by virtue of them being human. The idea being that all humans are an advanced race capable of complex thought. The advanced thought setting us apart from animals and making us worthy of protection.
Thus, a fetus should be granted protection when it is capable of advanced thought (ie - self awareness) or when doing so is essential to a functioning society. Society has and is functioning with the current abortion laws in place.
THEREFOR, protection should be granted to an unborn child when they are capable of human-like thought. While it is INCREDIBLY hard to find unbiased information on this, it seems a fetus has a developed brain around 32 weeks. Similarly, some children born at this point have a chance of survival without intervention... which is the current status quo. Thus, I am forced to label myself the somewhat oxymoronical anti-abortion and pro-choice.
So there's my attempt at approaching what is most often viewed as a moral question on a logical basis.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
quote:
Per abortion laws, I give no credence to the religious nor moral arguments for banning abortion. Governments should not be in the business of promoting my, or anyone else's moral or religious code.
And you never answered me about this part.
You have a good point, but I'm afraid we are bordering on a exercise in semantics at that point IP. I would argue we are not imposing a moral value but instead instituting a logically formulated set of values designed to ensure harmony in our tribe. Pure semantics.
I guess what I was trying to get at is the government should not advocate a moral position simply because someone holds it. It should have some reason and logic behind its dictated morals. I was also trying to imply that forcing ones morals on another does not somehow make you, nor them, a better person.
You raised a very good point and it stands, I hope my point was not lost due to my linguistic imprecision.
Oh I am sure that loving mother was all about advocating pro-choice and favoring abortion rights.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Oh I am sure that loving mother was all about advocating pro-choice and favoring abortion rights.
Kinda' backfired on you didn't it? If you hadn't made that snide remark someone might have believed you didn't have an ulterior motive. I doubt you have any more idea than anyone else on this site what her motives were.
No, she clearly wanted to be used as a political football. Obviously.
Waterboy: What are you talking about, "back fired"?
Do you think pro-abortionist folks retreating to a position that she "chose" not to have an abortion is somehow a positive statement of the "choice" movement? Had her pregnancy occurred before 1973, she would not have had a "choice" one way or the other since abortion was unlawful. The term "choice" is just some sanitized term used by your kind to soften the true barbarity of the practice of abortion.
As far as the point I was making with this post, any efforts to turn this woman's heroic decision (which was the point), as somehow a statement on your glorious pro-abortionist movement is flat stupid.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?ac0fd51f-8ab4-452d-82bc-29ed95e78430
Incidentally, I guess you other pro-abortionist folks (PM, Nellie) out there were offended. I mean, really, here is a Christian woman who never considered abortion as a solution. What gall she had. Did she not know she could have saved herself?
Oh, and Tim, funny how you started showing up shortly after aox disappeared...
Guido, don't get pi**y if the link you posted generates not the reaction that you intended.
It's a free country. That means your ideas can be applauded or derided. We're under no obligation to bow to your wisdom.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Waterboy: What are you talking about, "back fired"?
Do you think pro-abortionist folks retreating to a position that she "chose" not to have an abortion is somehow a positive statement of the "choice" movement? Had her pregnancy occurred before 1973, she would not have had a "choice" one way or the other since abortion was unlawful. The term "choice" is just some sanitized term used by your kind to soften the true barbarity of the practice of abortion.
Of course she would have had a choice. Not all states made abortion illegal in 1973. If she had the money to travel she would have had a choice.
quote:
As far as the point I was making with this post, any efforts to turn this woman's heroic decision (which was the point), as somehow a statement on your glorious pro-abortionist movement is flat stupid.
A decision implies that a person has a choice. Would it had really been heroic if she had no choice? How can someone be moral (and hence a true Christian) if they have no choice to behave immorally?
quote:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?ac0fd51f-8ab4-452d-82bc-29ed95e78430
Incidentally, I guess you other pro-abortionist folks (PM, Nellie) out there were offended. I mean, really, here is a Christian woman who never considered abortion as a solution. What gall she had. Did she not know she could have saved herself?
Wrong. Not offended at all. I truly believe the woman to be heroic. Incidentally, I knew a woman who had a very similar death. She had breast cancer, and lived just long enough to deliver her baby. I believe she made the right choice for herself. I couldn't begin to tell others what decision they should make in that circumstance. Do you really have the gall to tell people what is the right choice in those circumstances? FYI, in Judaism, the woman's decision would be considered wrong--you never sacrifice an existing life for one that may not come to exist.
quote:
Oh, and Tim, funny how you started showing up shortly after aox disappeared...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
You have a good point, but I'm afraid we are bordering on a exercise in semantics at that point IP. I would argue we are not imposing a moral value but instead instituting a logically formulated set of values designed to ensure harmony in our tribe. Pure semantics.
I guess what I was trying to get at is the government should not advocate a moral position simply because someone holds it. It should have some reason and logic behind its dictated morals. I was also trying to imply that forcing ones morals on another does not somehow make you, nor them, a better person.
You raised a very good point and it stands, I hope my point was not lost due to my linguistic imprecision.
Well, I think it goes right to the heart of the issue. It's foolish to pretend that we aren't imposing one person's (or several persons') versions of morality on the masses, even if we think we're coupling it with logic it still comes down to an action being either good or bad and a standard by which to differentiate the good from the bad.
On a side note, I hope you weren't trying to say that there are no logical reasons for opposing abortion?
Lastly, there have to be better arguments for abortion than tired old canards like "a mother's body." For god's sake, we're all rational adults here, and reason implores us to acknowledge that the fetus, though
dependent on the mother, is no more a part of her body than a fully birthed baby. Let's not be so crass as to think we can equate a fetus to an appendage you could just cut off.
It's an autonomous life conditionally dependent on another autonomous adult life. A fetus has different DNA, and often a blood type differing from the mother, and it's a completely different sex 50% of the time.
There, pot stirred.
Without knowing the entire circumstance of this woman's decision I could not envision judging her, but in no way would I consider her decision heroic. Brave? Yes, but heroic implies something different to me. She left three young daughters with a single father to care for them. Heroes don't willingly do that. She may very well have cheated herself of a fulfilling lifetime providing the care and direction they needed from a birth mother and I hope it wasn't for some contemporary religious dogma. If she had a chance to live, her family deserved a better thought process. Martydom works well for Islamist radicals but doesn't fit well here.
Now, to throw some feces into the fan. Why are you guys so intent on changing the world to fit your moral compass? I really am curious why you "pro-life" zealots are so cock sure of yourselves that you comfortably insist on imposing your view of life on everyone else. You must indeed be a blessed generation as none before you were so unquestioningly confidant of the answers to moral dilemmas. Your sense of moral superiority is irritating and yes, pathetic.
What I want to say to you Guido is, you should use your own reasoning here. You emphatically believe that no one has the right to criticize the war in Iraq unless they have served. You told me that since I had not served directly that I had no right to even give my opinion. Well, buddy, you have no dog in this race either. Unless you can bear children, you have no right to criticize or decide for those who do. Your proselytizing is hypocritical, unwanted, and unwarranted as well as that of any other male. If you were true to yourself, you whould be attacking any male who tries to venture an opinion on this subject. But of course anyone who denies that he had an agenda in posting this topic, will have no problem ignoring his own hypocrisy.
Sort of like IP denying science has any real understanding of global warming, but science has the "life thing" all figured out. My science good. Your science immoral.
I will not be lured into any discussion of abortion rights with the intent of enlightening your views or changing them (which probably pleases you). I did my own study and contemplation and came to my own conclusions.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911Oh, and Tim, funny how you started showing up shortly after aox disappeared...
Dude. I am anti-abortion, but I will not use that issue as a blood sacrifice for a failed political agenda. I am not going to start an argument just for the sake of an argument.
You one of them 'egg-on-uppers' or are you more one of us 'second-tri' folk?
IPLAW:
There are logical reasons to oppose abortion. However, 95% of opposition to abortion is purely religous based. People were told to oppose abortion, so they do.
and I dont believe I used the tired "women's body" argument. It implies the woman is the sole decision maker and the father has no rights whatsoever. An argument I would never make (unless her health is actually in danger due to the pregnancy).
I will argue about peripheral issues, but there is little point in arguing abortion with most people. I enjoy open minded debate (especially when it changed my view - which is the point after all) but find it nearly impossible on this issue. Hence my initial declaration instead of an argument.
quote:
Now, to throw some feces into the fan. Why are you guys so intent on changing the world to fit your moral compass? I really am curious why you "pro-life" zealots are so cock sure of yourselves that you comfortably insist on imposing your view of life on everyone else.
Again, every law is an imposition of morality. Is that so hard to understand? Would you prefer we have no laws? Also, why are you trying to impose your morality, or lack thereof on us? You should just be silent on the issue.
quote:
You must indeed be a blessed generation as none before you were so unquestioningly confidant of the answers to moral dilemmas. Your sense of moral superiority is irritating and yes, pathetic.
No. Rather I believe that it's
YOUR generation that has led us down the path of moral equivocation, self-indulgence and selfishness where abortion can now be discussed as a "right." The generations preceding you knew better as well; that is why abortion was considered a barbaric and murderous act.
It was your generation that created dilemmas, not ours. quote:
Sort of like IP denying science has any real understanding of global warming, but science has the "life thing" all figured out. My science good. Your science immoral.
Where did I do that? I merely stated that there are many scientists on both sides of the issue. You are the one that simply pretends as if there is only one side...
quote:
I will not be lured into any discussion of abortion rights with the intent of enlightening your views or changing them (which probably pleases you). I did my own study and contemplation and came to my own conclusions.
Good for you.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
IPLAW:
There are logical reasons to oppose abortion. However, 95% of opposition to abortion is purely religous based. People were told to oppose abortion, so they do.
and I dont believe I used the tired "women's body" argument. It implies the woman is the sole decision maker and the father has no rights whatsoever. An argument I would never make (unless her health is actually in danger due to the pregnancy).
I will argue about peripheral issues, but there is little point in arguing abortion with most people. I enjoy open minded debate (especially when it changed my view - which is the point after all) but find it nearly impossible on this issue. Hence my initial declaration instead of an argument.
I can make an argument against abortion just as I can make an argument against infanticide and neither involve theism.
Sure there are people who don't want abortions because it offends them spiritually, but the same goes for murder. Do we strike the laws on murder because the church believes that murder is sin? Of course not. I disagree with the church on many, many things, but just because they happen to get it right occasionally doesn't make the position untennable for the rest of us.
BTW, you didn't use the "woman's body" argument, but it was used no less than 5 times in this thread. Sorry I didn't better delineate that.
It is promoted heavily by the Christian right as a moral issue but I think where abortion gets slipped into the government context is a human rights issue.
I find it interesting that liberals are all about the human rights of suspected terrorists and convicted murderers, but don't seem to care about those of a fetal human being.
Personally, abortion doesn't have a place in my life, but I don't think the government needs to meddle in moral issues. I don't think the government belongs in the marriage business either- straight or gay, except as it relates to people trying to bilk the government by bogus unions.
Conan, it was approached as a human rights issue and that is why abortion is legal. A fetus incapable of living outside of the mother is not human and has no rights. It garners no protection of the human rights commission nor the constitution (baring the rare imposition of murder charges for intentional actions by another party killing the fetus. A dilemma of law to be sure).
Granting the fetus rights would mean the government can mandate anything it wants on any pregnant mother. The fetus would be capable of inheriting property even though it may never be born alive. Every miscarriage would have to be investigated as a murder - to make sure the mother didnt drink or smoke or otherwise contribute to the miscarriage. Under current US law you cannot purposely kill one human to save another - thus a doctor could never terminate a pregnancy even if continuing meant a 99% chance the mother and fetus would die.
There are hundred of seemingly outrageous and far fetched legal issues that pop up and will pop up. It is the LEGAL issues that determines the law. The abortion topic is one of the most complex legal issues that has ever been presented (Due Process issues as well as protected rights).
If you really care about the legal aspects there are many websites that chronicle the cases (and summarize them) involved and the logic used:
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/conlaw.htm
The above site summarizes the decisions for you (I had to read them ALL for god's sake).
IPLAW:
You know as well as I the differences between abortion and murder. The crime of murder is the intentional killing of another with malice aforethought. The United States does not recognize a fetus as a separate individual than the mother - so she would be convicted of killing herself.
The rationale for protecting individuals from murder are entirely different than the argument for protecting fetuses. For one, pure chaos would reign if anyone had the right to kill another person at will. One would be forced to kill now and ask why later. Though shalt not kill (other tribal members) is the oldest of civilizations laws.
It's clear that you are emotionally attached to this issue (not saying you shouldnt be), but I hope you see the difference in reasoning. No mass chaos has resulted from abortion. Basic civilization can continue. Free rights to murder would end civilization in a month.
quote:
Conan, it was approached as a human rights issue and that is why abortion is legal. A fetus incapable of living outside of the mother is not human and has no rights.
It depends on the stage, and medical advances are pushing the limit farther back. Also, an infant is incapable of living without human intervention just as a fetus...
quote:
...miscarriage would have to be investigated as a murder - to make sure the mother didnt drink or smoke or otherwise contribute to the miscarriage. Under current US law you cannot purposely kill....
These are all periphery issues that can easily be dealt with, especially the last issue of the health of the mother. Are we really worried about a fetus inheriting property? Just more work for you and I if they can!
quote:
There are hundred of seemingly outrageous and far fetched legal issues that pop up and will pop up.
Life and death issues are not/should not be controlled or directed by concerns for efficacy in our legal system; that's reprehensible.
Surely you have read the cases IPLAW? You know as well as I that they are well reasoned compromises. It would be nearly impossible to overturn them and save face. The issue is not simply legal efficacy, though in the legal system it is an important goal unto itself.
(ps. I edited and posted a response to you above per murder as you were posting)
quote:
You know as well as I the differences between abortion and murder. The crime of murder is the intentional killing of another with malice aforethought. The United States does not recognize a fetus as a separate individual than the mother - so she would be convicted of killing herself.
The SCOTUS never took up the issue of when life begins. It has never made that determination, so to say that the issue has been settled is incorrect. It has not been addressed.
Also, laws can and do change, and with the advancement of neonatal medical care in the last 25 years, it's becoming more difficult to justify abortion in medical terms.
quote:
It's clear that you are emotionally attached to this issue (not saying you shouldnt be), but I hope you see the difference in reasoning. No mass chaos has resulted from abortion. Basic civilization can continue. Free rights to murder would end civilization in a month.
There is no difference to a person who believes that a fetus is a life. The fact that society has been able to equivocate it away for selfish gain is not a reflection of whether it is truely a life or not. It is either life or not, regardless of our personal opinion on the matter...and you were right to point out the irony in charging a person with two counts of murder when killing a pregnant woman. The law isn't even immune from the absurdity of stating a fetus isn't a life.
We should recognize the inherent limitations of the legal system. It should not be worshiped as an unerring beacon of morality. Laws can, and sometimes should be overturned when they are morally reprehensible or at odds with the science they once stood on...
Abortion is basically where the laws of nature and laws of man butt heads. It's a slippery slope and you are both right: one of the more intricate issues of law ever dreamed up.
Personally, I think it is a red herring issue when it comes to presidential candidates. A president does not have the power to overturn it.
Yes, I do get that a president can nominate justices that he thinks will handle the issue according to his views if it comes before the supreme court, but there are no guarantees. Roe V. Wade has stood for 34 years now. I believe it is here to stay.
So present it, present the argument that abortion should be illegal.
I fail to see how making abortion illegal will in any way advance our society. It is personal belief's that a fetus has natural rights that drives the decision. Society stands nothing to gain and society is not damaged by the status quo.
As cold as that may be, the only benefit to outlawing abortion would be the appeasement of a subset of person's beliefs. I do not think that is a good enough basis to legislate. At what juncture is legislating on belief too far?
Abortion is a religious debate. Nothing more. I have never heard anyone argue against abortion on anything other than a religous basis or moral basis. In spite of the above reference to all laws being moral - laws are meant to serve society not morality.
So maybe I am just not swayed because I view it purely as a logical issue and anti-abortionists argue purely from a religous standpoint (faith being inherently illogical). Perhaps I need to be enlightened.
quote:
So present it, present the argument that abortion should be illegal.
The question hinges on whether the fetus is a life. If you medically determine the fetus to be a life, then game over. If you chose, beyond all rational thought to argue that a fetus is not a life, then abortion is no different than having a tumor removed, and you are right.
quote:
I fail to see how making abortion illegal will in any way advance our society. It is personal belief's that a fetus has natural rights that drives the decision. Society stands nothing to gain and society is not damaged by the status quo.
I didn't realize that societal advancement was a prerequisite to human rights...
quote:
As cold as that may be, the only benefit to outlawing abortion would be the appeasement of a subset of person's beliefs. I do not think that is a good enough basis to legislate. At what juncture is legislating on belief too far?
Again, all our laws are a legislation of a belief. The Good, The Bad, and The Moral Law to differentiate the two.
quote:
Abortion is a religious debate. Nothing more. I have never heard anyone argue against abortion on anything other than a religous basis or moral basis. In spite of the above reference to all laws being moral - laws are meant to serve society not morality.
Again, it hinges on where you being the debate. If it is a wholly differentiated life form that simply depends on the mother for sustinance, just as an infant does then you are wrong.
quote:
So maybe I am just not swayed because I view it purely as a logical issue and anti-abortionists argue purely from a religous standpoint (faith being inherently illogical). Perhaps I need to be enlightened.
Check out the JREF forums on abortion. There you can see a great number of atheists who are vehimently opposed to abortion as they believe it is murder. It's not a religious issue, though I think that some people believe it offers them some measure of protection because they THINK it's only a religious one.
Bottome line is, whether a fetus is a life or not
IS NOT a legal or religious issue. It is a medical issue, but the courts have refused to revisit the issue because it creates a conundrum for them.
As I said before in my statement, LIFE itself is not the determining factor. Being alive only garners a minimum amount of protection, additional protection is given because of what makes us human.
Sperm is both alive and capable of creating a human, but when a teenagers throws a condom out the window it isnt murder.
--
Social advancement should be the precursor to ALL laws. Human rights laws are key to a modern functioning society as it establishes basic rules that, if followed, would help curb the cycles of violence.
--
Laws are not meant to delineate good from bad, they are meant to keep social order. It doesn't matter that murder is wrong, it matters that people committing murder would destroy our society. Even most of the 'moral' codes in the world are society codes in their origin (including keeping women covered in Islam, kosher foods for Jews, and worshiping one god). In most cultures, religion was sustained by the state for the sole purpose of controlling society and thus its moral codes served that purpose (Ra wanted the serfs to build pyramids, the gods wanted the Spartans to die defending the kingdom, god wanted the Christian kings to invade Jerusalem instead of fighting each other, god wanted Muslims to forcible convert Arabia and pay tribute to the caliphs).
I digress, laws should be formulated to benefit society and not a particular moral code. Though, the two are not mutual exclusive.
--
I did not say atheists did not oppose abortion. I simply stated that arguments I heard were all religous based. Furthermore, of those supporting making abortion illegal I would confidently say 90% or more do so on religous grounds.
--
Medicine cannot determine at what point a fetus becomes a human worthy of protection. The protection is granted by LAWS, but medicine. Therefor, it remains a legal issue.
Again, the issue isnt when something is alive, but when it should be endowed with individual rights. If medicine decided sperm+egg = human it wouldnt effect the debate. Everyone knows it is genetically human and alive by definition. But LEGALLY, that alone doesnt not grant protection as an individual.
Thus, legal issue.
quote:
As I said before in my statement, LIFE itself is not the determining factor. Being alive only garners a minimum amount of protection, additional protection is given because of what makes us human.
Sperm is both alive and capable of creating a human, but when a teenagers throws a condom out the window it isnt murder.
Surely you must be joking or being flippant. If you cannot see the difference between sperm and a fetus I think we have nowhere to go. Human life, in this country at least, attaches certain inalienable rights that you simply cannot abridge. There is no limitation on those rights.
quote:
Social advancement should be the precursor to ALL laws. Human rights laws are key to a modern functioning society as it establishes basic rules that, if followed, would help curb the cycles of violence.
This is quite a myopic and utilitarian view of human rights, and again, a good example of where the law fails to encompass the breadth of the issue.
quote:
Laws are not meant to delineate good from bad, they are meant to keep social order.
On the most fundamental level they all are. They all seek to explain why one behavior is preferrable to another. Not even the most nihilistic philosopher among us can argue that evil and good do not exist on a fundamental level. The societal contract theory only works when you have a benchmark to test ideas against. You seem to think social order precluded religious mandate, so it's a chicken and egg discussion.
BTW, if nothing is good or evil, simply a choice or preference then we eventually devolve into nihilism which breeds a loss of meaning, quintessentially what viktor frankel warned us all of.
quote:
It doesn't matter that murder is wrong, it matters that people committing murder would destroy our society.
This point just dissolves into a discussion of objective ethics and morality which we neither one of us will ever answer.
quote:
Even most of the 'moral' codes in the world are society codes in their origin (including keeping women covered in Islam, kosher foods for Jews, and worshiping one god).
We could start a completely different discussion just on this topic...
quote:
I digress, laws should be formulated to benefit society and not a particular moral code. Though, the two are not mutual exclusive.
What happens when the benefit to society entails the extermination of others (IE WWII Germany)? The societal benefit test is simply too loose and deficient a means to develop a human rights. It's a good tool, but certainly not a unerring one.
quote:
Medicine cannot determine at what point a fetus becomes a human worthy of protection. The protection is granted by LAWS, but medicine. Therefor, it remains a legal issue.
Sure it can. There is no branch of human science more equipped to make that determination. It's certainly not an appropriate for political hacks in black robes.
quote:
Again, the issue isnt when something is alive, but when it should be endowed with individual rights. If medicine decided sperm+egg = human it wouldnt effect the debate. Everyone knows it is genetically human and alive by definition. But LEGALLY, that alone doesnt not grant protection as an individual.
And black people weren't legally fully human beings for quite a while in this country thanks to our legal system. I think it's time we end our beatification of the legal system around here.
If abortion is the answer then search the history of man to who were the contributors to the rapped advancement e of knowledge. You will find many were illegitimate at birth such as Jesus and the illegitimate children that have contributed to changing the face of our society.
There have been many that are without explanation.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
If abortion is the answer then search the history of man to who were the contributors to the rapped advancement e of knowledge. You will find many were illegitimate at birth such as Jesus and the illegitimate children that have contributed to changing the face of our society.
There have been many that are without explanation.
Uh, I believe that the Gospel spells out that Jesus wasn't a bastard child. That's the whole point of immaculate conception.
quote:
rapped advancement
Is this about Imus? I thought we were done with that story.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
rapped advancement
Is this about Imus? I thought we were done with that story.
*GROAN*
IPLAW:
1) I have been trying to drive home the point that simply being ALIVE is NOT, NOT the reason we grant rights to humans. We grant them rights because they are capable of advanced thought and as such we presume they have a thought process similar to ours. It is NOT just because something is alive we protect it. I thought I have been extremely clear on that point.
Therefor, in abortion the question is at what point do we attach those rights. Not whether or not the living thing is human. You could answer as soon as an egg is fertilized (advocated by Christian fundamentalists) or as soon as it takes its first breath (historical view, advocated by nearly no one today). The status quo is the fetus has independent rights from the mother when it is capable of surviving outside the womb.
I believe you are advocating for rights upon fertilization. I have listed many of the potential problems this brings to bare not to mention the fact that few, if anyone actually knows the moment they become pregnant. If that is what you believe, I cant change your mind. All I can do is try to explain my point of view and understand yours.
BUT TO DATE, you have given neither a statement of your opinion nor an explanation of it.
Furthermore, there are limits to the rights of man. Your rights stop as soon as it infringes on the right of another. That's the entire core issue here - at what points do the rights of the fetus overtake the rights of the mother? If both had unlimited and inalienable rights the mother would be free to abort whenever she wanted and the fetus would be free to be born under all circumstances. That doesnt work out so well...
2) A moral relativism is not a plunge into nihilism. I advocated the notion that all laws should serve the common purpose the society for which they are to serve. That is in no way a nihilistic notion.
This theory also explains the evolution of society and of law throughout the ages. Tribal societies needed to function as a cohesive unit only inside the tribe, a feudal society needed draconian laws to keep order and a modern democracy needs to protect minority rights while yielding to majority rule.
3) Man has sought to explain his world since he first gazed upon the stars. Most commonly the explanation entailed all the science they could muster and a pantheon of gods, demons, and wizards to explain the rest. Likewise, as long as man has gathered in any numbers certain among us have been appointed experts on the gods and their knowledge sought.
Religion existed before society as belief in things unknown, but society spawned organized religion. There is no doubt in the historical record that the priests of Egypt and the Aztecs, the holy men of the Zoroastrians, or the religous leaders of any ancient society wielded join political and religous authority. Yet we stand by the belief that this universal truth somehow failed to infect the Judeo Christian belief system and that our religous credo was laid down by god and we are right and everyone else is wrong.
Their laws were laid down by corrupt religious leaders witnessing false visions and leading the people astray. Our religous laws came from god.
Not only could this be an entirely different topic, there are volumes of books and lectures written on it. Entire classes are offered at universities on such notions. So I must digress.
4) There is a solid argument to be made that the extermination of the Jews by Nazi Germany was NOT beneficial to the society (on any number of grounds from loss of skilled labor, to waste resources, to alienation of sects of its own society).
Furthermore, as state above, the societal goals are relative and change over time and in a modern democracy protecting minority rights is highly beneficial to society. Protecting the rights of others in your society ultimately DOES benefit you and the entirety of society from similar slights. Lest we quash all dissent and the majority opinion be taken for truth.
I suppose that would entail most of a interest-theory thought process.
5) What I meant when I stated that medicine cannot state at what point a fetus becomes human is just that. It cannot, or HAS not been able to make that determination. Any attempt at doing so would be drawing an artificial line (a tropical storm becomes a hurricane at 75MPH because meteorologists say so).
Medicine CAN NOT determine at what point rights and laws should be applied to a mass of expanding cells inside of a woman. How would an MD come to such a conclusion? Is it when it looks human? When it can think as an advanced human (a year or more outside the womb)? When it has unique DNA? Or when it can survive outside the womb?
The question is one of philosophy and a matter of law, not medicine. Laws dictate the application of rights, not medicine. This is an issue of LAW, not medicine.
6) You're absolutely right! Black people were not considered human under the laws of the United State for a long, long time. Medically speaking, they were of course fully human. But as your example illustrates that has no bearing on the rights granted nor the legal status recognized. A perfect practical illustration of how laws dictate our society and not medicine.
And again, even if medicine were allowed to rule, in the context of abortion medicine has no manner, no guidelines on which to determine the moment a fetus becomes worthy of protection. This realm of morality in which you previously argued is not the expertise of science.
Furthermore, if science came to THE conclusion when a fetus is magically enlightened and should be garnered the full protection of the state and the fundamentalists chose to accept it; hypocrisy would ring true throughout the land. Fundamentalists fought against science to declare the Earth was flat, the sun rotated around the Earth, Jerusalem sat at the center of the Earth, woman were inherently less smart, blacks were not fully human, chemistry and electricity were acts of magic from the devil, bathing is unhealthy, autopsies and the study of anatomy were heresy, and of course that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. In fact, since the the renaissance pretty much every fight religion has picked against science has been lost and eventually conceded. It would be amusing to hear religion arguing on the side of science.
---
but you are correct. This argument will go nowhere. However, I would be interested in hearing your take on the issue. I dont believe I have heard you clearly express your view and underlying thoughts on the issue.
I hope you are not offended by this discussion. I find it rare to get someone who actually discusses this issue with a knowledge base and a thought process that forces me to think about my position. Thank you.
I think for simplicty I can give you an opinion on 1, 5, and 6 and my personal take on abortion. The other points, I believe, while interesting aren't necessarily important to the discussion.
Is that okay?
The fact that I have remained 100% neutral on the topic of reproductive freedom-rights, is something of which I am very proud. Neither pro-life nor pro-choice, having friends and family on both sides of the debate, finding fault with both sides, and yet finding good points from either side.