I regret getting a credit card, and that wasn’t even close to a painful process (though it did end up consting me money in the long run). I missed it in my reading of the thread… who said that no one regretted having an abortion?
—IOW, what you call “killing a burden”, I call refusing aid. And I think it should be perfectly legal to refuse anyone aid.—
How can you possibly compare scraping something to peices, tearing apart blood vessels and tissues, to “refusing aid?”
WHERE did I claim that this was irrelevant? The humanity of the unborn is a critical issue in this discussion, as my fellow pro-lifers and I repeatedly attest.
It came from my previous post…
“I’ve have read and heard of many women regretting years later of aborting their fetus(es), but I have yet to hear from mothers who regretted bearing their children and raising them (even mothers of murderers)…”
Sorry to hear about your credit card.
Apos, quite easily.
The woman is refusing the use of her uterus, just as she can refuse the use of her kidney or bone marrow or blood to anyone. The fact that technology at this point entails the death of the fetus when it’s removed, doesn’t change the fact that the woman still has the right to choose how her body is used. She no longer wishes to nourish a fetus, she no longer has to.
Yes, it’s an icky procedure. Yes it results in the fetuses death. I fail to see what that has to do with her right to dictate how her body is used. I’m sure the death of a child due to leukemia is not pretty either, but that doesn’t mean the child’s mother is forced to undergo bone marrow transplants against her will.
No, it isn’t. Heck, I’ll even concede for the sake of argument that medically, a fetus qualifies as a human being.
That still doesn’t move me to give it legal status higher than that of the woman.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Badtz Maru *
There are people who believe that killing animals is just as bad as killing people, and the meat industry is guilty of murder. Should we start all debates on whether or not it’s OK to eat meat with the assumption that an animal life is equal to a humans, because a minority have personal beliefs that hold this true, and abandon any arguments that don’t make that assumption?
[QUOTE]
No, we should start the debate at whether or not the life in question is a life. From there we can go to whether it is a human life. Then, if not, to what sort of life it is. Finally, whether or not that type of non-human life is deserving of the same protections as human life.
Now, there are many points to debate there, but none of them are completely crazy to consider. If we are talking about a cow, then es, it is a life, no it is not human, it is a bovine. From there debate away as to whether or not the worth is equivalent.
If we are talking about an unborn child, yes it is a life, ye it is a human life. Er, okay, we have a definition. Now we have one side pro-baby-butchering who says, “It doesn’t matter we can kill it anyway” and the other side, anti-baby-butchering who say, “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life…oh, an unalienable right to life, case closed.”
No, we have one side, in favor of women’s right to own their own bodies that says that liberty and the pursuit of happiness do actually do apply to females as well as males while, on the other side we have women-hating enslavers who say that unalienable rights only apply to female fetuses and do not apply after birth.
So essentially, what you are saying is that one person’s right to convenience & a posh existance is more important than another’s right to live?
Should I remember that if I ever see you crossing the road whilst I do not feel like being bothered to slow down?
Sorry Bryan, but the above statement completely withdraws any credibility you may have had.
You do realise that sociopathic statements like that do far more harm to your cause than good right?
To the RTL crowd out there, I would recommend saving your breath (keystrokes), for the PC crowd that has sane and reasonable members. This guy is just plain advocating murder for convenience sake. Even most “Choicers” don’t see it that simplisticly…
Just an observation though.
As for this crap about it being her body, she can do what she wants with it, sorry but that argument holds no water with any person of intelligence.
Hey, ya know what? How about I strap a coupla kilos of plastic explosive to my body & park myself in your living room. My body, I can do what I want with it. Better yet, how about I use my body to rape yours? It’s a a classic case of my rights trampling yours & immoral & all, but hey, it’s my body I can do what I want with it and you can’t tell me otherise so there!
Could you expand on this? I’d appreciate it.
I’m a bit confused as to how you got that from my statement. In my opinion, if the choice is between the mother suffering severe emotional stress for nine months and the fetus dying forever, I would choose the fetus. In my mind the right to life of the fetus trumps the right of the mother not to be imposed upon for nine months.
That’s what I like to see in an anti-choice poster, straight out, no pretense at moral handwringing and hitting you over the head with a fetus - just plain “biology is destiny, hard luck”.
The previous was a comment on the foodeater, by the way.
In keeping with your philosophy, I will be taking obscene amounts of your money and giving it to starving people. After all, if you posit that someone’s right to existence trumps your rights over your property…
Incidentally, I will be taking one of your kidneys as well.
Except that human person or no, the rights of the fetus to exist do not and cannot trump the right of the woman to control her body. If in your opinion they do, please explain why the rights of homeless people to eat do not trump your right to own money.
I have heard that. I’ve heard it more often than I’ve heard anyone regret an abortion.
In the words of a former co-worker of mine ‘I love my kids, but if I had it to do over again, I never would’ve had them.’ She spent a lot of time talking about the life she would’ve had, and how unhappy she was with the decision she made.
A newborn and the severely disabled are not wholly and completely dependent upon their mothers body, and no longer need to leech from her resources to survive.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by akennett *
**
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Badtz Maru *
There are people who believe that killing animals is just as bad as killing people, and the meat industry is guilty of murder. Should we start all debates on whether or not it’s OK to eat meat with the assumption that an animal life is equal to a humans, because a minority have personal beliefs that hold this true, and abandon any arguments that don’t make that assumption?
You seem to be missing my point.
There is no one definition for ‘a human life’, and the current LEGAL definition does not start at conception but at birth. We ARE discussing a BAN on abortions, I’m assuming we are talking about a legal ban.
Now, your point appears to be that you feel the legal definition of a human life should extend to when you believe life begins. For this you need to provide an argument that will persuade those who have different personal beliefs that yours are more correct, and should be adopted as law.
You also believe that the rights of an unborn human life should override those of the host, and that the state should in effect speak for the defense of the unborn human life. This also varies from a number of peoples beliefs - some of those that accept that life begins at conception still do not believe that the state should restrict what a woman can do to her own body. This is actually a bit closer to my view…I consider myself anti-abortion, but pro-choice. I think laws banning abortion set a dangerous precedent - that the government can impose their control over another’s body for the defense of a third party. If you feel that it is actually morally right to allow this, then do you believe the government should also force people to donate organs to those in need, if theirs are the only ones that match? If not, why not? If it’s OK to force a woman to give birth to save the life of a fetus, is it also OK to force a woman to stay in bedrest if a doctor has said that movement could endanger the pregnancy? Is it OK to make a pregnant woman stop taking medications that could endanger the life of the child? I’m honestly curious as to what your answers would be.
Cite?
(and remember…“human life”, not “person” not “citizen” but “human life”)
This is what the Supreme Court said when upholding Roe vs. Wade by a five to four vote in the early nineties, and I think it’s relevant here:
Men and women of good conscience can disagree, and we suppose some always shall disagree, about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage. Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. The underlying constitutional issue is whether the State can resolve these philosophic questions in such a definitive way that a woman lacks all choice in the matter, except perhaps in those rare circumstances in which the pregnancy is itself a danger to her own life or health, or is the result of rape or incest. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
Others have already posted links to the testimony of medical profesionals stating that life begins at conception. I know of no one with any amount of medical/biological training that would present an argument that a human begins his life in any form other than human. If you believe that life starts as some other form than human, please provide some evidence of that. All definitions must first start with the basics.
What I believe is that every human life has the same basic rights, including the right to life. I find it unimaginable that there are so many who do not share this view. I have also stated that I would support an exemption to an abortion ban to save the life of the mother as I believe that one cannot be forced to give one’s life for another. However, I feel that this right to life trumps concerns of desire and comfort.
Look, I know that pro-baby-butchering folk love it when anti-baby-butchering folk say this, but I will: A pregnancy results from a widely known act, namely, sexual intercourse. We all know this. Now, when I am considering my options on whether or not to act in a certain manner I weigh the pros and the cons. I know that if I decide to take any course of action, I must be willing to accept the consequences. If a woman decides to have sex, she must be willing to accept the consequences, including the possibility of becoming pregnant. Outlawing abortion does not rob a woman of a choice, it merely makes the choice occur earlier in the process. I have already posted that sentiment, maybe you missed it.
Also, in case you were unaware of laws in the US and many other countries the precedent of gov’t control over one’s body for the protection of another has already been set. Murder and Rape laws, for example, already do this.
This is not analogous. I was not the cause of this person’s need. The woman (in all cases except rape) was half the cause of the unborn child’s need. While it is unfortunate that half the costs of supporting this need cannot be supplied by the male, that is the way things are.
I have some problem with the premise of the last questions, but will make an attempt at a later time to answer them. I want to be able to fully and clearly express my opinions on these matters rather than make a quick answer that will not be truly representative of my thoughts.
To love someone but prefer that they didn’t exist is paradoxical.
If this is truely the case, then she needs counseling. Kids have been murdered by mothers who have the same thought process as her, ie - Susan Smith & Andrea Yates.
Or is she just fantasizing out loud, and you mistakenly take it as regret?