It’s not a moral issue, since a fetus is mindless to begin with. It feels no pain, so there’s no difference. As far as the difference between withholding support and shooting a patient, I think it’s just a matter of moral cowardice. It would be better to shoot them, and get it over quickly. At the very least, a lethal overdose of painkillers would be better. Dead is dead, after all.
Ah, once again the “Suffer, slut !” “pro life” rhetoric rears it’s head. I hate to break it to you, but people have sex all the time with no intention of having offspring.
That’s not what you were claiming, though. You said that pro-life groupsprosecute abortion doctors. Now you’re talking about *individuals * (not groups!) who decide to engage in vigilante justice instead of prosecuting.
Please make up your mind.
No way. You’re the one who claims that abortion providers were almost never prosecuted prior to Roe v. Wade. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders.
It provides EVIDENCE, but not PROOF. The evidence (including testimonies from prominent pro-choicers) suggests that the delegalization of abortion will NOT result in massive back-alley abortions, much less unsafe ones. This is admittedly not proof, but it is evidence, whereas the pro-choice claim is nothing but conjecture.
I imagine that she’s talking about an embryo, which is what gets aborted 85% of the time in America, rather than a fetus. But oh how the pro-lifers like to inaccurately call it a fetus. They also like to call it a baby, sometimes a child, but very rarely do they call it a person, because people aren’t cute but babies are.
If that’s the case, then I appologize for my ignorance. I AM talking about early term abortions, but I can never remember whether or not it’s a fetus, a zygote, or an embryo.
SteveG1 I really don’t like the basic idea of killing person C because of the illegal act that B did to person A. Even when A = mother, B = rapist and C= fetus.
But this situation has led me to be very reluctantly pro-right to abort, but very very anti RvW as it was IMHO a extra-Constitutional decision and I also consider myself ‘pro-choice’ - but in no way in the conventional sense.
I am very for the woman having to allow the situation where a fetus may attach and develop - I fully support this is her choice to make - but also see that this choice is usually make during consensual sex.
The issue of rape comes up. The way I see it is that the woman who was raped NEVER chose to become pregnant (by rape), being consistant to my pro-choice stance that fetus has no claim for the use of that womb. She should have the right to have the fetus removed from her uterian wall, but doesn’t have the right to directly kill the fetus.
The fetus should be treated with respect due anyone who is going to die due to medical reasons (as opposed to executed by civil authority).
Now just expanding a bit, why I consider myself pro right to abort, is because I feel that if rape is the only exception, there will be many false cases of rape filed, which would destroy lives, creating 2nd class citizens out of of innocent ‘sex offenders’. This would ruin 2 lives, the fetus, and the father.
Yeah, these occur so frequently, it’s refreshing to hear someone point out that these form the fulcrum upon which all abortion law should pivot. :rolleyes:
You bailed on the last thread when I gave you an analogy you couldn’t reconcile. Are you still advancing this nonsense, pretending you hold a coherent moral position?
This sounds like it’s comming from the position that animals have equal rights as humans, which is one form of morality. But there is at least one other, where humans are above animals, and innocent human life is even more precious.
Abortion is a singular act, involving desperate woman who most often don’t believe they are committing an evil act. I’m OK with prosecuting only providers, especially since this is the type of prosecution the American public is most likely to have a stomach for.
And, BTW, human life begins at conception. It’s inarguable.
So, excuse the brevity of my response, but, uh…cite? Has there been a study done on how women who have had abortions rate them ethically? (And what do you mean by “singular”?)
Cite? (The rest of us deserve to be informed of such an obvious truth, yeah?)
I’m willing to presume an ethical intention on the part of most women seeking abortions. If you think this is unlikely, fine, I have nothing to refute your position that women may well have evil intentions when seeking abortions.
By “singular” I mean:
Do you refute that the fetus is alive? Or that it is human? Let me know so I can provide the proper cite.
Ahhh but they DO happen. It’s a fact. They may not be a rampant epidemic, but there they are. Since they happen (fact), they must be considered. I tend to give them more consideration than anything I personally see from the opposing side. The changes we are seeing right now, are the result of people pushing their own supposedly religious agendas, and to hell with any consequences, and to hell with anyone whose own religion says different (if anything at all).
It makes no difference to me personally if someone else gets an abortion or doesn’t get one. I can let things be. However there are those who refuse to do the same. As for being a fulcrum, it is more valid than the frothings of The Far Far Extreme Right Theocratics (too much hyperbole?), which is based on their interpretation of the bible, as THEY choose to twist it (while ignoring any other interpretation). Their way violates the right to privacy, the right to get the medical care of their choosing, and the right to control their own bodies and lives.
Who supposes the agendas are religious exclusively? I assert that my pro-life position is decidedly secular, albeit a secular axiom you may well disagree with.
If you’d prefer to argue with a frothing, far-right religious zealot, then I apologize. I can’t help you. I firmly believe that purely religious positions have no place as public policy.
No, maybe I should apologize. On one thing we DO agree - purely religious postiions don’t belong in public policy, but I honestly belive that is what is happening. At its most basic, I don’t approve of government sticking its nose in issues where there is no overriding and compelling need. That includes the private decisions of its citizens.
My position? <confused> I would sooner have a root canal sans anasthesia than have an abortion (even a medically-necessary one), but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t. People make decisions all the time between two “evil” options.
Hmm…not to be snarky, but the dictionary definition of “singular” didn’t help - what I was getting at, is do you feel the the moral ‘weight’ of the decision to abort (and its ethical repercussions) should be wholly on the woman, or also on the man that impregnated her?
Alive, or at least “alive” in a sense that is different from the way my finger is ‘alive’.
Anyway, all this is a hijack, right? Strat, how do you punish the woman for having an abortion? Prison? Fines?
It always takes me by surprise when people react reasonably around here in response to a counter. It’s a character flaw of mine, I guess. So, my response is, um, well, oh yeah?
Well, I’m pretty sure you and I would disagree about what is “private.” So, there you go. “Private,” to me, means something that affects only the people agreeing to the activity in question. “Private” does not equal “legal” to me, either. A brothel can keep its shades drawn, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK in my neighborhood.
:dubious: Where did that come from ? No, I think that animals have rights depending on how mentally complex they are. An insect has none, while a dog has more than a fetus does.
Only if you think that human = meat with human DNA. It’s “human” the way a tumor is “human”. IMHO, it’s a fundamentally evil way of looking at the world. It’s a view held by people who have zero respect for the life, freedom or happiness of people.