Rights of the Un-born

[Marek]

Because, as I've said and have grown tired of repeating, choosing to have sex is not the same as choosing to become and remain pregnant.

Of course this is true. I never said it wasn't. The woman my not choose to become pregnant, but this is a known possible outcome of the choice to have sex. The pregnancy results directly from the woman's choice. The child has no say, and therefore, the woman must be held responsible for her actions. Just because she didn't want to become pregnant doesn't give her the right to kill. If I leave my door open and someone walks into my house, even if I didn't want them to come in, I still have no right to kill that person.

It is not my line of reasoning. The status quo ante refers to the state of things before the violation occurred.

I don't understand. Is the violation the abortion or the conception? Either way, the reasoning still fails.

Firstly, we do not have "another," as in another person. We have a fetus. The two are not the same.

Tell me how the right to life of a fetus is any less than that of a 'person'.

Second, it is not entirely true that "the right to protect one's 'bodily integrity' outweighs the right to life of another," and that is not my argument. The right to protect one's bodily integrity outwieghs the right of the other to live at the expense of another person -- as I have already said many times over in this thread.

In order to deny a fetus the right to 'live at the expense of another person', you must take away their life (unless the pregnancy is far enough along). Therefore, you are denying their right to life based on the right of one to protect their bodily integrity. So either way you look at it, the right to life is being outweight by the right to protect one's bodily integrity.

 

[TheMagi]

I don't know, nor do I need to. To insist that I must is to commit the fallacy of the beard.

Fallacy of the beard?

Firstly, we do not have "another," as in another person. We have a fetus. The two are not the same.

Unless you know (and can show with evidence) that they there is not 'another' - another person - it would seem risky to proceed upon that assumption.

Second, it is not entirely true that "the right to protect one's 'bodily integrity' outweighs the right to life of another," and that is not my argument. The right to protect one's bodily integrity outwieghs the right of the other to live at the expense of another person -- as I have already said many times over in this thread.

Why only bodily? Does a child have nor right to live at the expense of their parents? Even if the parents must work - which could invlove wearying their bodies?
Magi

 

[Rae]

I'd think the best scenario for everyone involved would be to offer the child for adoption.

--Wouldn't that, too, be "avoiding" the consequences of having sex?

Your statement sounded harsh and unempathetic. I hope you and your family have never had a problem in this area.

there are many couples that want a child.

--As long as it's physically perfect and white, yes. If the child is physically imperfect or non-white, often the answer is no.

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

--Wouldn't that, too, be "avoiding" the consequences of having sex?

Your statement sounded harsh and unempathetic. I hope you and your family have never had a problem in this area.


--As long as it's physically perfect and white, yes. If the child is physically imperfect or non-white, often the answer is no.

I think you would be surprised. I worked in a hospital that did not allow abortions, but we had women come from different places to have their babies adopted. One baby we had-a beautiful little girl, was born with brain stem only. She was up for adoption-she was to be adopted from day one- the adoptive parents still wanted her, birth defect & all. She lived 6 mos, but the parents loved her. I can tell you different cases all day long, and again, you'd be surprised. Many people have the love in their hearts to take care of a child, anyone that God hands to them. In our country, especially!

 

[Rae]

Many people have the love in their hearts to take care of a child

And many adoption ads, in my area and elsewhere, say "We'd love to have your healthy white newborn as our baby!" The racial and disability discrimination in adoption, unfortunately, is well-known and well documented...as is the ageism. If the kid's not a newborn, good luck with getting her/him adopted.

 

[Lucretius]

Why should we give the unborn when we are going to make breeding-slaves out of the women? The pro-life position is rather weak in women's rights. She gets pregnant — TOO BAD — now you're stuck with the kid for 18 years! But we're teaching you a lesson, you cannot have sex for pleasure, because if one little sperm gets into that egg, it's another 18 years of misery!

Oh, you can put your baby up for adoption, and it might to get adopted. It might die from lack of care. It might grow up to live a horrible life because no one was there to parent it.

Pro-life is funny because it cares about the unborn baby so much, but doesn't bother with the rights of the woman who is bearing the unborn child, nor does it care about the baby once it is out.

 

[Eponine]

--Wouldn't that, too, be "avoiding" the consequences of having sex?

It is, but not in as bad a way as abortion. The ideal would be that only people who are willing and able to have kids have sex, but failing that the next best choice, the one that does the least amount of harm to everyone, is adoption. No, it's not perfect, but this isn't a perfect world. Sometimes you have to choose the least of evils.

Your statement sounded harsh and unempathetic. I hope you and your family have never had a problem in this area.

Maybe it is harsh and unempathetic- to the irresponsible people who have sex every day and reasonably expect they won't get pregnant! I do have a great deal of empathy for the innocent child who is deprived of a future which could be full of promise.

--As long as it's physically perfect and white, yes. If the child is physically imperfect or non-white, often the answer is no.

Then shame on those couples. I personally wouldn't ever refuse to take in a child in need of love based on either of those criteria. Nor did my mother choose not to give birth to me because of a genetic problem she knew I had.

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

And many adoption ads, in my area and elsewhere, say "We'd love to have your healthy white newborn as our baby!" The racial and disability discrimination in adoption, unfortunately, is well-known and well documented...as is the ageism. If the kid's not a newborn, good luck with getting her/him adopted.

Hmmmmm......yes there are people that all they want is what they want, but its not the majority. We are getting ready to adopt a 14 yr old who is seizure prone, and has been sexually abused since 3! We have 2 foster children, physically abused & prone to 'throwing fits' (I don't mean menial little screaming fits, either!) who may possibly be going up for adoption next month. We think they may already have a possibility of a pre adoptive home....(no, we are not taking these 2, because there is a brother, also, and we need a bigger house!) We also have an 8 yr old we have custody of who has a drug adicted mom.....(he is mixed....you should see us when we all get out!)

Again, yes, there are people ready to reach out....(we have a friend adopting a 16 yr old w/some problems) Some kids stay in foster homes forever, but in my state, they are trying to be pickier and are doing fingerprints & visiting homes more often.

Is it worth it? YES! When we have one call us & want to visit-or would love to be young again & come back.....................

Remember, too, your looking at ads, not people.

Why should we give the unborn when we are going to make breeding-slaves out of the women? The pro-life position is rather weak in women's rights. She gets pregnant — TOO BAD — now you're stuck with the kid for 18 years! But we're teaching you a lesson, you cannot have sex for pleasure, because if one little sperm gets into that egg, it's another 18 years of misery!

Oh, you can put your baby up for adoption, and it might to get adopted. It might die from lack of care. It might grow up to live a horrible life because no one was there to parent it.

Pro-life is funny because it cares about the unborn baby so much, but doesn't bother with the rights of the woman who is bearing the unborn child, nor does it care about the baby once it is out.

Breeding slaves?? Where did you get that idea?? The sad part is it is the women that pay, many men walk off & leave the woman to deal with the whole thing. I have talked to women who's heart has been broken because of abortion. The emotional scars are there, and they will never fully heal.

There is the best of care for women giving up their children for adoption, and excellent adoption agencies! Today, there is even an option for open adoption. Have you ever heard of Mercy Ministries? http://www.mercyministries.org/
This is one I know of personally, but I know there are others.

 

[Rae]

there are people ready to reach out

Not as many as there are kids waiting for homes, however. Otherwise, the only kids in foster care would be those who already have parents. It isn't the case, sadly.

I do have a great deal of empathy for the innocent child

But none for the woman who was seduced and abandoned. I'll keep that in mind.

I personally wouldn't ever refuse to take in a child in need of love based on either of those criteria.

Then you're unlike most adoptive parents out there, unfortunately. Disabled children, racial minority children, and of course kids that aren't newborns have far less chance of finding a good adoptive home. I hope you keep that in mind when you and your fiance adopt.

 

[Eponine]

Not as many as there are kids waiting for homes, however. Otherwise, the only kids in foster care would be those who already have parents. It isn't the case, sadly.


But none for the woman who was seduced and abandoned. I'll keep that in mind.


Then you're unlike most adoptive parents out there, unfortunately. Disabled children, racial minority children, and of course kids that aren't newborns have far less chance of finding a good adoptive home. I hope you keep that in mind when you and your fiance adopt.

Fiance?! Good heavens! I didn't mean to suggest I'm engaged. I don't even have a boyfriend! One look at my age tells you children are quite a ways in the future for me.

"seduced and abandoned"? You make it sound as if the woman had no choice! She did, and she chose poorly.

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

Not as many as there are kids waiting for homes, however. Otherwise, the only kids in foster care would be those who already have parents. It isn't the case, sadly.

Here in the US, part of the problem is not that there are not good homes waiting....its the red tape! I have learned its easier to foster & then adopt from there than to try & go the other direction.

But none for the woman who was seduced and abandoned. I'll keep that in mind.

Seduced & abanded....maybe men should be a little more responsible?

Then you're unlike most adoptive parents out there, unfortunately. Disabled children, racial minority children, and of course kids that aren't newborns have far less chance of finding a good adoptive home. I hope you keep that in mind when you and your fiance adopt.

Many people do keep that in mind. Many people would like to have an older child-maybe due to work reasons, or maybe they just don't want diapers....

 

[Rae]

You make it sound as if the woman had no choice! She did, and she chose poorly.

1. The "woman" we're speaking about only has hypothetical existence, so any characteristics you assign to her I find puzzling.

2. I find your attitude unhelpful and unloving, as I've known married women who didn't want to have children, took all necessary precautions, and got pregnant anyway. I'd appreciate you expressing some compassion for a woman in this situation based on the real-life women I've known who didn't want to get stuck with children they could not provide for and did not want, but apparently you think that's too much to ask, as you continue to hammer away at them regardless.

I guess I expect more from Pagans sometimes than I should. I'm sorry. Hate all women who have unplanned pregnancies and blame everything on them. Forget that I've known many and have real love for them. Heck, forget I said anything.

 

[Rae]

maybe men should be a little more responsible?

And people more compassionate and kind to their brothers and sisters who make mistakes, rather than saying "Oh, well, you made your mistake so to Hell with you." That would make things much better for people who didn't want children, and the children they didn't want as well.

 

[Eponine]

1. The "woman" we're speaking about only has hypothetical existence, so any characteristics you assign to her I find puzzling.

2. I find your attitude unhelpful and unloving, as I've known married women who didn't want to have children, took all necessary precautions, and got pregnant anyway. I'd appreciate you expressing some compassion for a woman in this situation based on the real-life women I've known who didn't want to get stuck with children they could not provide for and did not want, but apparently you think that's too much to ask, as you continue to hammer away at them regardless.

I guess I expect more from Pagans sometimes than I should. I'm sorry. Hate all women who have unplanned pregnancies and blame everything on them. Forget that I've known many and have real love for them. Heck, forget I said anything.

Well, I happen to be surprised that you, a Pagan, would advocate something which is equivalent to murder in my eyes, and in the eyes of many others. Doesn't that violate the Rede?! And I do have a certain amount of compassion for somebody in the situation you have described. I just don't think it justifies them killing their child when there are a myriad of better ways to deal with it. I'll be the first to help provide them with baby items, help find a good family for their child, heck, even take care of the child myself. Anything to save that child's life. I admit there probably aren't any legal grounds to ban abortion, but I still object to it on a deeply personal and moral level.

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

And people more compassionate and kind to their brothers and sisters who make mistakes, rather than saying "Oh, well, you made your mistake so to Hell with you." That would make things much better for people who didn't want children, and the children they didn't want as well.

Yes, remember it takes 2 to get pregnant....not one. Normally, when an abortion takes place, the woman is on her own, scared, and yes, abandoned. There should be nothing but love & compassion for anyone that finds themselves in this position, and yes there are places that offer that.

Now, my personal opinion is a sure way of not getting pregnant is to not be exposed. Also, through just a little effort, you can take control of the situation, and not have sex on the days you can get pregnant.

If you do find yourself pregnant, then come stay with me .... *OK, my home is not big enough for everyone, unless I can get the xtreme makeover people out here to build a multi-room home Seriously, there are options.

 

[Rae]

Just remember, CC10, most people aren't like you.

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

What! They should be! !

 

[Rae]

I happen to be surprised that you, a Pagan, would advocate something which is equivalent to murder.

Abortion is not equivalent to murder. Killing animals for food is not equivalent to murder. Sending an unborn fetus back to the Gods is not evil or wrong, particularly when the woman it affects would be hurt by not doing so. Why should it be? If all fetuses were born, the earth could not survive.

I see no evil or wrong with abortion per se, just like I see no evil or wrong with a knife per se. It's how it's USED that matters. The implement itself is not evil.

Doesn't that violate the Rede?!

There's a reason it's called the WICCAN Rede and not the PAGAN Rede, you know...many Pagans like myself, who aren't Wiccans, find the Rede okay but don't live by it.

I do have a certain amount of compassion for somebody in the situation you have described.

Good. Your posts didn't show that you felt anything but contempt/hatred for those women. I'm glad to see I was wrong and that you do have some empathy.

 

[Eponine]

Abortion is not equivalent to murder. Killing animals for food is not equivalent to murder. Sending an unborn fetus back to the Gods is not evil or wrong, particularly when the woman it affects would be hurt by not doing so. Why should it be? If all fetuses were born, the earth could not survive.

I see no evil or wrong with abortion per se, just like I see no evil or wrong with a knife per se. It's how it's USED that matters. The implement itself is not evil.


There's a reason it's called the WICCAN Rede and not the PAGAN Rede, you know...many Pagans like myself, who aren't Wiccans, find the Rede okay but don't live by it.


Good. Your posts didn't show that you felt anything but contempt/hatred for those women. I'm glad to see I was wrong and that you do have some empathy.

With all the discussion here, I am reluctantly forced to admit that there would probably be times when abortion might be better than some alternatives. Unfortunately, there are many women in the world who abuse the option.

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

With all the discussion here, I am reluctantly forced to admit that there would probably be times when abortion might be better than some alternatives. Unfortunately, there are many women in the world who abuse the option.

Which alternatives? Abortion, is very difficult on the mother, when that decision is made, normally its not an easy decision....and one not easily forgotten