2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIf it is a situation, any situation, where two people must make a decision on who will live or who will die because both can't be saved, what does the law have to say? I suppose both could fight for the right to live and whoever wins lives or one might consent to let the other live. Either way I don't see either scenerio as having a crime being committed. It is nothing short of a soul wrenching affair either way that I do not feel the right to judge.
What does any of that have to do with my question?
We can assume that a woman who wishes to have an abortion to save her life has already decided not to give her life for "another". The question is why should the law allow her to make that choice IF the fetus' life is just as important as hers?
Suppose there was a case ? Should a parent be legally allowed to kill their 5 year old child to save their own life?
Originally posted by whodeyDodging the tough questions as usual.
If it is a situation, any situation, where two people must make a decision on who will live or who will die because both can't be saved, what does the law have to say? I suppose both could fight for the right to live and whoever wins lives or one might consent to let the other live. Either way I don't see either scenerio as having a crime being committed. ...[text shortened]... is nothing short of a soul wrenching affair either way that I do not feel the right to judge.
There is no possibility of your "human being" fetus consenting. Therefore, you are allowing the woman to decide to "kill" the "human being" fetus to save her own skin. And you suddenly don't feel that you can make a moral judgment? Most curious.
Originally posted by bbarrWe agree rape is a terible thing, but a woman who is pregnant because of rape has inside of her a life that is one-half hers. Why kill HER child? It was not the child's fault the mother was raped.
If a woman uses contraception she is explicitly choosing not to get pregnant. What the woman is doing is choosing to engage in an activity that has slim chance of resulting in pregnancy. Then again, going out alone at night can result in rape which can result in getting pregnant, and only a monster would claim that a woman who is pregnant as a result of rape ...[text shortened]... an activity that can result in pregnancy has anything to do with the permissibility of abortion.
Originally posted by rhemalogosBecause her body has been hijacked without her consent, and it is a violation of her rights to autonomy, liberty and bodily integrity to force her to carry an unwanted child to term.
We agree rape is a terible thing, but a woman who is pregnant because of rape has inside of her a life that is one-half hers. Why kill HER child? It was not the child's fault the mother was raped.
Originally posted by mrstabbyBeing a parasite and being dependent on another human being are worlds apart in meaning.
The relationship between a fetus and a human is a parasite - host one, so yes, we are parasitic for a period of our lives.
Contraception is never 100% effective. Why should women have to be pregnant by chance? You seem to be obsessed with making the world the children are born into worse for them when they grow up.
"If pregnant, a woman is morally acc ...[text shortened]... fe to term."
That's your opinion, nothing more. Don't force it on other people's actions.
Humans and parasites have different DNA, and unless a human makes an immoral choice to "feed off" another human when they are capable of fending for themselves they are not called a "parasite".
The word parasite is an attempt by pro- aboritionists to relegate an unborn to non-human status to eliminate their guilt of killing an innocent life. Obvious, don't you think?
Unborn babies are dependent for their mother's sustenance, after they are born, they are still dependent. When old, which happens to all of us, they will probably again be dependent.
Following your belief that anyone who needs help or that anyone who is dependent on another human being is a parasite and worthy of being killed for the convenience of the one being depended upon...I would say this would be hard on your own self-esteem when the time comes when you, for whatever reason, are dependent.
Am I forcing my beliefs on you? Are we not involved in a debate by mutual consent? I will always use the force of reason and expect no less from the people I am debating.
Originally posted by mrstabbyI still don't see what your criteria has to do with anything. Not everyone has the same responsibilites as I have shown. For example, the mentally impaired do not have the same responsibilites as do you or I yet they are still human. In fact, you and I not have the same responsibilities as the President of the United States etc etc. However, so long as does not have the same responsibilites as does the unborn to not infringe on anothers rights then we should'nt call them human?
What you talking about, they still have the responsibility not to infringe on others' rights - they're not outside the law.
Originally posted by bbarrHowever, assuming the premise that the unborn are human beings with the same rights as you or I, how would you then feel about the same situation?
Because her body has been hijacked without her consent, and it is a violation of her rights to autonomy, liberty and bodily integrity to force her to carry an unwanted child to term.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrYes, her body has been hijacked and I am not saying, "That is her tough luck". I am saying rape is a terrible thing and her rights to autonomy, liberty, and bodily integrity have been violated by THAT.
Because her body has been hijacked without her consent, and it is a violation of her rights to autonomy, liberty and bodily integrity to force her to carry an unwanted child to term.
Killing her own child does not solve the problem. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Originally posted by rhemalogosParasites in nature are very often if not usually unable to survive without their host - they are dependent.
Being a parasite and being dependent on another human being are worlds apart in meaning.
Humans and parasites have different DNA, and unless a human makes an immoral choice to "feed off" another human when they are capable of fending for themselves they are not called a "parasite".
The word parasite is an attempt by pro- aboritionists to relegate an ...[text shortened]... t? I will always use the force of reason and expect no less from the people I am debating.
You can complain all you like about the use of terminology, I could just as easily say that your inaccurate use of the term "baby" to describe a fetus as trying to manifest feelings of guilt, and trying to create attachment to something that has no thoughts or feelings of its own. I chose to ignore it as I thought that sort of thing petty.
The fetus forces the mother to release hormones to bring about changes in her body. The mother has no choice in the matter. The people around you are able to choose whether or not they care for you when you are elderly. I wouldn't force anyone to care for me when I can't for myself, it is their choice, same with a mother supplying nutrients to her unborn. Being given an abortion pill to remove an invader is akin to having a trespasser being removed from your property.
I never said you were forcing your beliefs on me, I worded that sentence very carefully so as to avoid that very confusion. I was concerned that you may have believed that abortion should be illegal - which would result in some people's opinions being forced on others. Try to read what I type instead of jumping to conclusions when you see the words "force" and "opinion" in the same sentence.
Originally posted by whodeyFor every right there is an equal an opposite responsibility. The President has extra privileges and rights that go with his responsibility (i.e. the power he wields as head of state).
I still don't see what your criteria has to do with anything. Not everyone has the same responsibilites as I have shown. For example, the mentally impaired do not have the same responsibilites as do you or I yet they are still human. In fact, you and I not have the same responsibilities as the President of the United States etc etc. However, so long as do ...[text shortened]... lites as does the unborn to not infringe on anothers rights then we should'nt call them human?
If a fetus has a right to a security as a person, then it also has the responsibility not to infringe that on the mother. To be given free access to the inside of a person is a privilege, not a right.
3 edits
Originally posted by mrstabbySo if I were to somehow place you back inside the womb of your mother as you are now you would automatically loose your rights and all of this is because of your made up construct that you must have equal and opposite responsibility to have "rights"?
For every right there is an equal an opposite responsibility. The President has extra privileges and rights that go with his responsibility (i.e. the power he wields as head of state).
If a fetus has a right to a security as a person, then it also has the responsibility not to infringe that on the mother. To be given free access to the inside of a person is a privilege, not a right.
For some, I suppose there is some magical morality that explains what rights we should have and what rights we should not have. Tis all then leads to a sense of entitlement that is prevalent on the far left. However, I view rights as a gift. For example, I have the right to vote because others before me have given me the right. I have the right to say what I think because others before me have given me the right etc. In other words, the right to life should be viewed in the same way. The mother has given the child the right and it is a gift just as you have been given the gift yourself. However, you think it should be denied to the unborn even though it was not denied to you at one time.
Originally posted by whodeySo you want some people to have rights without responsibilities. That is double standards. Pure and simple. If I were to return to the womb I'd have the same rights as before, but at any time my mother would be perfectly entitled to remove me from there.
So if I were to somehow place you back inside the womb of your mother as you are now you would automatically loose your rights and all of this is because of your made up construct that you must have equal and opposite responsibility to have "rights"?
For some, I suppose there is some magical morality that explains what rights we should have and what rights ...[text shortened]... you think it should be denied to the unborn even though it was not denied to you at one time.
If rights are bestowed, then who are you to say that the mother has "automatically" granted the fetus a right to life? What if the mother decides not to bestow it access to her body (again, no-one can ever have a "right" to a person's physical body) and wishes to induce miscarriage?
Are "rights" forever irrevocable? If I invited you into my house does that mean you now have residence rights?
It's a privilege to be allowed to be inside another human being's body.
You do understand the difference between a right and a privilege, yes?