Right To Life

[charmtrap]

Is it not possible to reach a compromise on this?

Deconstruct the issue to its most basic. The real question is personhood. When is a fetus considered a "person" with rights independent of it's mother?

Let's agree on a point between conception and birth where a fetus is recognized as a person. Up to this point, the mother has autonomy to decide how her uterus and organs systems will be used. Beyond this point, the fetus has a right to an undisturbed gestation (severe maternal health problems excepted.)

Both parties have legitimate claims that should be recognized. To me, it's not that difficult to accept. Why does everything have to be all or none?

Because, to pro-lifers, every fertilized egg is a "child". Not a potential child, but a child, and therefore sacred. Never mind that there is no evidence that the embryo can think or feel. It's emotionalism run amok.

 

[butterfoot]

How is this any more useful or contributory than Spinrad's flaming that you just decried?

To correct your distortion, it is the anti-abortionists who would represent the slave-drivers, because it is they that would prohibit the mother the liberty to end the violation to her fundmental rights.

Physician, heal thyself!

:æ:

How do we violate her fundamental rights? She was allowed to do what she wanted and she got pregnant. Her fault and the man she was with fault. Not the innocent fetus that resulted.


-cw

 

[Carri20]

Lol I'm sorry Spinrad.. It's just that your statements get crazier and crazier while most of us are trying to be serious.

 

[Spinrad]

Lol I'm sorry Spinrad.. It's just that your statements get crazier and crazier while most of us are trying to be serious.

You are serious. The discussion is not. I say we kill all forum posters and harvest our organs.

 

[Carri20]

Is it not possible to reach a compromise on this?

God isn't in the habit of compromising, so no.

 

[butterfoot]

Because, to pro-lifers, every fertilized egg is a "child". Not a potential child, but a child, and therefore sacred. Never mind that there is no evidence that the embryo can think or feel. It's emotionalism run amok.

You are right it does get very emotional and it bugs me even more to think that some people regard a fetus as a parasite that has invaded and isn't wanted based on that primous.

-cw

 

[:æ:]

How do we violate her fundamental rights?

It's not that you do, it's that the ban on abortions that you advocate would for reasons already explained.

She was allowed to do what she wanted and she got pregnant.

But getting pregnant is not what all women that have sex want.

Her fault and the man she was with fault.

She bears no more fault than a person who tries to help a stranger only to have her things stolen from her in the process.

Not the innocent fetus that resulted.

The fetus is certainly not "innocent" of occupying her body and injecting it with unwanted waste and hormones.

:æ:

 

[levi501]

Here's a PM from cameron that was merely a weak attempt at some satisfaction for his losing arguments here.

ad hominem and an appeal to emotion.... no rational argument, just reasserting his previously debunked claims.

Give me a break


You two have the dumbest and craziest arguements I have ever seen. To actually believe that a fetus is actually a pest or leach is assinine. The fetus didn't create itself it was created when two people had sex. I am done replying to you two because you are giving me a headache. That is they you like to think of it so you don't feel guilty about killing a human being. A human being that was created by the mother and the father not something that just showed up and said hmmm this looks like a warm spot. I now see how you regard life in general and that you see it as expendable. Whatever have a nice day.


-cw

If a woman can be forced to carry a child why aren't people forced to give blood transfusions?
Blood donations are far less dangerous then giving birth and they certainly save lives.

 

[Spinrad]

I say force people to give blood, kidneys, half a liver, onions and an eye. Keep them in a freezer and dole them out as needed.

 

[charmtrap]

You are right it does get very emotional and it bugs me even more to think that some people regard a fetus as a parasite that has invaded and isn't wanted based on that primous.

-cw

It shares many of the same attributes though. I wouldn't characterize it as such because of the emotion involved, but its not out of line.

Still, I wouldn't characterize a fetus as a human person either. Unfortunately, all these arguments from pro-lifers start with the assumption that a fetus is a child.

 

[levi501]

I say we force every pro-lifer to adopt as many children as it takes for them to become pro-choice.

 

[Soul Searcher]

Right to life, does this really mean we have a right to life? Or does it mean others have a right to force life upon others. for example if one truly has the right to life then they should be able to lay down that life if that is thier wish.

For example someone with a really painful affliction that will only get worse should they not have the right to end the suffering?

Or a prisoner sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, should he/she not have the option of laying down that life?

No offense to anyone but from where I stand the words right to life really mean the right to force ones views on another.

 

[Spinrad]

Right to life, does this really mean we have a right to life? Or does it mean others have a right to force life upon others. for example if one truly has the right to life then they should be able to lay down that life if that is thier wish.

For example someone with a really painful affliction that will only get worse should they not have the right to end the suffering?

Or a prisoner sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, should he/she not have the option of laying down that life?

No offense to anyone but from where I stand the words right to life really mean the right to force ones views on another.

"Great shot kid, that was one in a million!"

 

[Spinrad]

I say we force every pro-lifer to adopt as many children as it takes for them to become pro-choice.

And not newborns, either. They should be forced to adopt three already borns with one being at least ten years odl before they can even see a newborn.

 

[atoborch]

IMO,abortion is murder.As for the death penalty,I would have the criminal executed in the same manner as his victim was murdered.

Yeah that is sure truning the other cheack there Green Man

 

[atoborch]

for a woman that doesn't want a child, being forced to act as an incubator for 9 months including the sharing of biological resources is parasitic enslavement.

I'm going to use that one, you get two points

 

[Carri20]

I say we force every pro-lifer to adopt as many children as it takes for them to become pro-choice.

It doesn't surprise me at all that a pro-choice person would say that. It's unfair, completely irrelevant, insensitive to children, and would only serve to "punish" or pressure to "change" those with different perspectives. Let me guess, are you from the left? (Please excuse my sarcasm.)

 

[Ninja Turtles]

I'll make it simple:

PRO-CHOICE != PRO-ABORTION
​

 

[Soul Searcher]

I'll make it simple:

PRO-CHOICE != PRO-ABORTION​

For those that do not know.

!= means does not equal

 

[jayem]

God isn't in the habit of compromising, so no.

Well, IIRC, didn't God allow Moses to compromise on the divorce issue?

And anyway, we're not talking about religious doctrine. We're talking about laws that apply to all of society--even those who don't have the same idea of God as you do. Perhaps your God does hate abortion. But doesn't he also hate worshipping other gods, and not respecting the Sabbath day, and taking his name in vain? But should the government enforce this on all its citizens under threat of criminal prosecution?

I agree with you that abortion is a very bad thing. A tragedy whenever it happens. But a pluralistic society has to have laws that make practical sense, and that reflect political reality. Compromise is what politics is all about.

Abortion can and should be reduced by voluntary means. Education, persuasion, enlightenment. Conscientious use of birth control by men and women would reduce abortions more than anything else. (And abstinence is the best choice for young people not in mature, committed relationships.) Most all western European countries have about half the rate of abortion of the US, yet they don't have highly restrictive laws. Why can't that work here?