Reply With Quote
And at what point does a fetus have a body and rights?
And at what point does a fetus have a body and rights?
a fetus doesn't have rights, it isn't alive, and spurminator is right ( if spurminator is a she) you have no right to tell her what she can do with her body
So, if you can keep it from taking that first breath, that's okay?
When it's organs are developed enough to sustain it's own life..and I'm en led to my own opinion and couldn't give a damn if anyone agrees with it or not.
And I'm not going there, I no longer choose to participate in an argument with any member of any gender that should the issue of an unwanted pregnancy arise...for all intents and purposes could just stand up and walk the away.
Sorry. I just thought the name of that organization was kind of funny.
So, infants born with underdeveloped lungs or non-functioning kidneys and livers aren't alive? Got it.
Duly noted. After all, it's not agreement that matters here...is it?
D'okie dokie.
I'm still interested in knowing the precise moment during ALL pregnancies when the "life switch" is thrown and it becomes alive. There seems to be some ambiguity in that area and, jeeze, isn't this kind of an important point for there to be so much uncertainty?
Most pro-abortionists feel completely different about capital punishment. Rather 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man executed...right? How 'bout, Rather 10 inconvenient babies carried to term than 1 viable fetus aborted?
Seems a good analogy to me. Erring on the side of caution, no?
Yeah...Sorry. I just thought the name of that organization was kind of funny.
Why is a group called "The Abortion is Life Group" be concerned with Labor Unions, Imminent Domain, Gun Control, and Religious Freedoms?
Don't be a patronizing asshole just because someone doesn't believe the same things you do. I would 100% support a ban on late-term abortions ... after about 16-20 weeks when a fetus, if born prematurely, would be able to survive with some sort of life support. Maybe I'm behind the times, but I'm not aware of any advancement in medical science that could sustain and nurture a < 16 week old embryo.
And I do support the death penalty.
I'm not trying to be patronizing. In you whole answer, the biggest problem I see is where you say "...about 16-20 weeks..."
For God's sake, can't we be more precise than that when we're dealing with a human life? Why not 15 weeks 6 days?
It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of human rights. And, you're willing to make a rough estimate on the time when a human becomes deserving of a right to life. That bothers me. In fact, I think it should bother everyone.
I am. It's called the female body.
Yeah, I know. And, if I didn't say "most" pro-abortionists, I meant to.
I think the term you want here is viable, not alive.
Because obviously a fetus is alive, but it's not necessarily viable.
And of course this nation should avoid providing protection to a vulnerable, viable child and worry more about saving mouse embryos.
Could this society be any more decadent?
As for the "it's my body" cop out, the government already regulates our body 10 ways to Sunday.
And why do feel that this little glob of DNA's rights automatically supercede my own?
Well old buontons is really showing his true colors when he says:
"The "Christian" and social conservatives have pulled on dubya' short and curlies to curtail all kinds of pre-natal/neo-natal care programs around the world, such that many now women and babies die or seriously injured for lack of care. Nicholas Kristoff has visited and do ent many of these countries where the US' witholding of funds has resulted in horrible sickness, injuries, deaths.
Below, the same assholes would prefer vaccine-preventable cervical cancer (but not for their daughers) while fantasizing that kids will abstain from screwing with or without a vaccine or condom or whatever.
Once these self-rightous, self-congratulating assholes decide THEY are "right", they don't give a who gets hurt or who dies."
================================================== ============
Now it is the United State of America's, Bush and the Christians in particular fault that people are dying "all over the world". Hey aren't you the one who was hollering that the deficit was too high. Make up you mind will you. Heck, I keep forgetting you don't know what you want.
From reading this thread you would think that Roe vs Wade is the only reason conservatives want a conservative thinking judge on the court. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want someone who knows how to read the cons ution and rule accordingly. We want no foreign law quoted or what society wants, we want someone who reads the cons ution and understands what the founders of this country intended. It worked for many years, no reason it wont now.
edit. bad.
But it was true.
I'm glad you understood.But it was true.
I think it's right, too.
Neither absolutist position is morally coherent, which is what makes the debate so difficult.
The woman has a right to self-determination. The fetus has a right to survive. Sometimes they come into conflict. How is it resolved?
Often I think that mainstream antipathy towards abortion is not towards the entire ins ution, but towards its use as birth control in support of a recklessly promiscuous lifestyle. Mind you, abortion is a terrible thing, but if it were a rare procedure conducted only after a woman is impregnated through rape, or a 12-year-old gets pregnant, or when the life or health of the mother is threatened, I don't think there would be near as much of a fight over it.
I don't so much think that abortion should be outlawed universally, but I do support restrictions, and I do think that it should have a social stigma, not so much judging the woman, but saying, hey, this is a serious and terrible thing to have to do, and only do it when it's absolutely necessary.
What the courts did, and unintentionally, mind you*, was hold up abortion as this fundamental right to be revered and cherished. That's twisted. We shouldn't be celebrating that a woman has the freedom to go the doctor and have him chop up her fetus into little pieces and pull them out, or jab a sharp probe into the base of its skull and vacuum out its brains. We should be mourning that in our society it ever comes to that, and keeping it as rare as possible.
*Blackmun never intended for his decision to mandate abortion-on-demand. He simply wasn't a good enough justice to comprehend the ramifications of what he wrote. That's a big reason why I was so opposed to the Miers nomination, and why I thought that the defense "being a Supreme Court justice is easy" was so contemptible.
I tend to agree with you. I know before it became legal the old coat hangar trick was quite often cited as a reason for a so called mis-carriage. But I also believe that many family doctors took matters into their own hands after talking with the family. Of course many young ladies moved in with relatives in other states to finish some school. And many a young man was convinced that he really did love her and wanted to be part of the family by a means commonly known as a shotgun. There was those that married to make an honest woman and went on to raise a family of which they were rightly proud. And knowing some of families, I sometimes wonder if it wasn't used as a means to marry someone who the family opposed. But to use it as some have, a means of birth control seems really, really wrong. Someone, sometime has to think of the life being destroyed.
The problem I have with the abolish Roe side of the argument (taken to its logical end result, which would be a ban on all abortions, I suspect) is that a limitation on abortion would be the ONLY way in which the conflict between the woman and the fetus is resolved against the woman. If this were truly about protecting the rights of a fetus (whether viable or not), the restrictions on pregnant women should be much, much more stringent. For crissakes, if our society was truly worried about the health and welfare of fetuses, you'd expect that there would be a hue and cry for mandatory pre-natal care, too. Interesting to me that there isn't; in fact those who oppose abortion also generally oppose the idea of standardized or mandatory healthcare -- positions (at least with respect to pregnancies) that seem to be at odds.
In fact, about the only protection for a fetus that has been written into law is the difficult-to-prove crime of injury to a fetus, which (to my knowledge) does not criminalize negligent acts that result in harm. In most instances, the law doesn't treat a fetus as a person and social policies only pay lip service (at best) to protecting the miniscule interests a fetus might have. Why should that be different in the realm of abortion?
To me, this isn't about developing a culture that reverently protects the rights of the fetus; it's about mandating the manner in which women deal with nature and its consequences by imposing a standard rooted entirely from a relativistic morality. The arguments to the contrary of that stem entirely from Judeo-Christian norms and mores that may or may not be the standards by which some individuals in our society live.
Like smoking, drinking and drug use while pregnant?In fact, about the only protection for a fetus that has been written into law is the difficult-to-prove crime of injury to a fetus, which (to my knowledge) does not criminalize negligent acts that result in harm. In most instances, the law doesn't treat a fetus as a person and social policies only pay lip service (at best) to protecting the miniscule interests a fetus might have. Why should that be different in the realm of abortion?
Or a nine-month diet of doritos & chocolate milk? ...
That, or any other reckless behaviors that a pregnant woman might engage in that might incidentally have an effect on the life she's carrying. I mean, if we're really worried about protecting a fetus, why not write a law that compels all pregnant women to avoid any possible means by which the fetus might be injured or killed?
I think real exceptions for those instances in which the life/health of the mother is threatened should be established. But otherwise, legalized abortion on demand because you simply don't want the child is not a good proposition.
Sounds like other areas of the law would need to be fleshed out.In fact, about the only protection for a fetus that has been written into law is the difficult-to-prove crime of injury to a fetus, which (to my knowledge) does not criminalize negligent acts that result in harm. In most instances, the law doesn't treat a fetus as a person and social policies only pay lip service (at best) to protecting the miniscule interests a fetus might have. Why should that be different in the realm of abortion?
To me, this isn't about developing a culture that reverently protects the rights of the fetus; it's about mandating the manner in which women deal with nature and its consequences by imposing a standard rooted entirely from a relativistic morality. The arguments to the contrary of that stem entirely from Judeo-Christian norms and mores that may or may not be the standards by which some individuals in our society live.
Why stop with abortion?
well done from way down town, that was exceptional verbalization of a very complex argument, I applaud your post.
I'm not, but I'm still right.and spurminator is right ( if spurminator is a she)
I'll ask you: why abortion? With other prohibited activities, generally crimes, there is a victim who is identified by law to possess rights that are invaded by the criminal perpetrator.
To be consistent, your argument necessarily means that laws will have to come into existence that either: (1) define a fetus as a person for all purposes; or (2) concoct some bizarre architecture to define when a fetus does or does not have rights. Either result is problematic, I think.
If you define a fetus as a person for all purposes, you open the door to all sorts of interesting possibilities. If a fetus is a person, can a mother who miscarries be prosecuted for manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide if there is some proof that the miscarriage was provoked by the mother's behavior? I mean, if the idea here is to protect the interests of the fetus, it seems to me that some State resources would have to be devoted to investigating miscarriages to determine if there was misfeasance by the mother that may have caused the result.
Say a pregnant woman is injured in a car accident caused by the negligence of an employee of Holt Cat. She goes to Wayne Wright or Jim Adler -- or better yet, goes to a plaintiff's lawyer who isn't afraid of a courtroom -- and sues Holt Cat. Should the fetus be able to recover damages from Holt Cat in that action? If not, why not? I mean, if there is some injury, why shouldn't the fetus be en led to a recovery?
Here's another situation, the pregnant woman is married and her husband is killed by the negligence of a Holt Cat employee. The woman is en led to damages for wrongful death, and likely can recover for things like emotional distress and loss of consortium. Why shouldn't the fetus be en led to similar damages?
The list of absurd results just grows from there if you define a fetus as a person in the law. If you don't define a fetus as a person for all purposes, you're simply drawing the very same arbitrary line that Yonivore despises with respect to defining viability.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions