I suppose if you were shot to death during a robbery you would consider your death to be an incidental consequence of firing the gun, yes?
And the only difference between the fetus who had an incidental death visited upon him, and the homeless guy, is the fact the homeless guy is still among the living.
And I would agree that it is about freedom. Freedom from personal responsibility. Freedom from parenthood. Freedom from the consequences from our choices. Freedom not to be burdened with the care of a child that has been conceived.
Yes! It is! You do know the legal basis which keeps abortion legal, right? It has nothing to do with murder, death, kill and all to do with women exercising the right to control their bodies as they see fit.
Of course, if you take the attitude that women shouldn’t have this right, then you’re only going to see abortion as a tool of murder. But many folks don’t take such a dismissive stance towards the autonomy of women.
Someone shooting me in a robbery would likely be shooting me in self-defense. Their aim is not to kill me, but to get me to stop robbing or threatening them. If a bullet to the leg accomplishes this goal but at the same time, incidentally costs me my life, then no crime has been committed.
So the answer to your question is yes.
And? What is your point? This argument would be compelling only to someone who thinks a fetus’ “right to life” automatically trumps all other rights. I don’t have that opinion, so it doesn’t move me.
IMO, it comes down to that no-one can live a life based on a single principle. No life (human or otherwise) is that simplistic. To say that all Life is sacred should mean just that. But that is not what PL means. They think they mean that. What they really mean is that all as yet unborn life is sacred.
They have no regard for the lives already here-none whatsoever. This is irrational thinking–there is no way that a potential should trump an actual in this case (and in most other situations not relevant here). We PCers like to live in reality-with teens who fuck, with men who do rape, and men and boys who molest and impregnate little girls. With STDs and ectopics and stillbirths and congenital anomalies so severe that it is more painful for birth to happen-for the baby–than for it to be killed mercifully. None of that matters–Life above all to the PLers. (except when they get pregnant-a surprising number of them go get abortions and go pick up those picket signs the day after). See an article by Joyce Arthur on the Web. food for thought
the raindog can claim all he wants that most men are involved in their children’s lives etc–that is irrelevant(and also certainly not true for the all). But the fact remains that it is the female, by dint of her having the uterus, that pays the price for sex, socially, financially, physically (in terms of health).
I have a proposal for the PLers here: how about this scenario? The woman continues the pregnancy and gives birth. The baby is then handed over to the father, to be raised, clothed, fed, loved, kept healthy etc. Tit for tat. You play, you pay. And how. Woman gets the option of just walking away from baby and father forever, if she wants to.
The thing is, raindog, carrying a pregnancy to term can be problematic, and not just for health reasons. In the United States, the government only requires employer to provide unpaid maternity leave. For someone living paycheck-to-paycheck, taking the time off required could result in major financial hardship, including the possibility that she may not be able to pay rent, mortgage or utilities.
Three years ago, I was laid off for 7 months. Unemployment usually only covers six months, although I was fortunate that it was extended. I had no health insurance; I couldn’t afford it. If I’d become pregnant, it would have made it even harder to find a job, since I doubt employers would be willing to hire a woman who would need time off shortly afterwards to give birth. Scraping up the money for prenatal care would have been dodgy, and I suspect even the cheapest form of medical care for the birth itself would have bankrupted me.
I realize financial hardship is often pooh-poohed as a reason for having an abortion, but I’ve faced the possibility of becoming homeless before and found it terrifying. There are circumstances in which keeping one’s baby could result in losing one’s home and, while I realize things are quite different in England, here in the United States, I don’t think there’s that much of a safety net.
I should clarify, that no adoption option is made. YOu play, men, you pay. You had your 15 minutes of fun. Mother had 9+ months of pregnancy–now, it’s payback time. You can’t give the baby to your mom, either. Sorry, this society isn’t structured like that. What do you think of this?
and just a question: Where do you think all these babies go–Boy’s Town? Modern day, hygienic and loving Oliver Twist-land?
Hello again, the raindog, I have a few more questions for you.
1:- There’s a thread in GD at the moment about a hypothetical “foetus incubator”, a machine in which a foetus/embryo at any stage in development could be surgically removed from the mother and grown in. If I understand your position on this subject, then I imagine your reponse to such a machine would be that either the mother carries the potential child to term, or that it is is mandatorily grown in the incubator - that these two are the only options, but that they are equal morally speaking. Is this correct?
2:- I believe now, from the last few posts you’re made, that you’ve moved on from the view that pro-choicers are all utterly selfish, but I would like to try and expand on that. For a pregnant pro-lifer, the factors that they would consider when making a decision to bring it to term would be:
The foetus has personhood.
Am I capable of bringing up the child?
Do I want to bring up the child?
Can I give this child a good life?
Now, for the pro-lifer, the second, third and fourth factors are irrelevant - they believe that the foetus has personhood, and thus is as worthy of life as any adult human. However, for a pro-choicer, the factors to consider are:
Am I capable of bringing up the child?
Do I want to bring up the child?
Can I give this child a good life?
My point is - that the foetus has personhood is not a factor - not because we don’t care, but because we don’t believe it has personhood. It is not a case of us ranking the other factors higher than it - we simply don’t think that factor exists. I’m hoping this puts our viewpoint better into perspective for you, regarding our “selfishness” (though I admit some pro-choicers can make the decision for selfish reasons)?
3:- Thirdly, as both you and I have pointed out earlier, this issue revolves around the question “When does personhood begin?”. As i’ve said earlier, if we accept the premise that personhood begins at conception, I think your position is entirely logical - and likewise, you’ve said that if personhood does not begin at conception, but at some point in development, that our position is logical, too. So I think basically what we need to debate here is “When does personhood begin?” - after that we can talk about these other issues.
Bearing that in mind, we’ve already seen several people in this thread give their reasons for believing that personhood begins sometime later than conception - be it because of the legal decision made by people learned in the subject, or the biological fact that the brain and other parts of the foetus does not develop until the second trimester, or other reasons. However, while you’ve made it very clear that you believe that personhood begins at conception, I don’t think you’ve given your reasons for believing that - so my last question is, what are your reasons for believing that personhood begins at conception?
theRaindog, since you do seem to be in favour of abortion to save the life of the mother, when do you feel that the risk to her life is great enough to justify an abortion?
0.1% risk of death?
1%?
20%?
50%?
75%?
90%?
Does she actually have to be dying in front of you?
While childbirth and pregnancy, in the best case scenario, has a 1 in 10,000 risk of death, and a much higher risk of serious morbidity, your idea that women should just continue with unwanted pregnancies and give the babies up for adoption amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
Because that’s what it would be if I forced you to walk into a stadium of 10,00 people and told you I was going to kill one randomly selected person and seriously injure 100.
That’s only because people don’t automatically die when they are evicted from their homes.
If property was truly comparable to the inside of a woman’s body, then this comparison of yours would make sense. But guess what? The womb is not property.
A womb can not be condemned by the government, it can’t be taxed, it can’t be foreclosed upon, it can’t be regulated, it can’t be seized as a result of emminent domain. A womb is not a housing unit. It is not a hotel. It is not a way station or a pit stop. A womb is an internal organ, no different fundamentally than someone’s kidney or lung.
If the government is going to force me to use my womb for the sake of another person, what’s stopping the government from forcing you to part with a kidney for the sake of another person? What is the true difference between a fetus claiming the use of my uterus, and someone claiming the use of your bone marrow? If the only difference is that “I put the fetus there by having sex” , then that’s a pretty weak argument. By that reasoning parents should be legally required to donate lungs and kidneys to their needy children. But that would never happen because it’s such an obvious violation of personal autonomy. The only reason abortion is less obvious is because the womb is perceived as being a baby-making machine and nothing else.
I think it’s fairly evident that abortion is legal, and I think it’s fairly evident that many people think that is a national tragedy.
You got the first part right…
I don’t know if ‘many folks’ take a dismissive stance towards the autonomy of women. My view on that is pretty clear though isn’t it? I said a woman has, at the very least, these rights:
and that they should be respected and not trifled with capriciously. I’ve made my views about a ‘woman’s autonomy’ exeptionally clear. They can hardly be called ‘dismissive.’ You may seem them in** posts #40, #49 and #51.**
This whole sidetrack over a single word is getting a little banal and tiring. Whether a robber has the intent to kill you rather than wound you isn’t relevant to this discussion. In fact the abortion doctor isn’t nearly as ambivalent is he? One hundred percent of the time he will cause the “Death of the conceptus”; interestingly enough, your exact words.
If the tenant in your apartment is unwanted, you evict him rather than kill him. If the tenant in your womb is deemed a human life, you evict him via adoption not via the murder of abortion.
What is my point? I’m guessing you haven’t read the whole thread.
I would be interested in what those superior rights are however.
No I don’t, nor do I think anyone has the right to call her immoral. It’s clear to me that she is a victim.
As to her ordeal, I think it was wrong in every way. (based on the limited information you present) She should not have had to meet with that panel at all, and it was not their place to render judgement on her in any way.
That having been said, the question remains: "Was this a human life?"
If it was a human life, this is a tragedy on more than one front. First they humiliated this woman publicly, something they had no right to do. They amplified the tragedy by adding another victim to the mix by authorizing the killing of her unborn child. (which makes one wonder what the purpose of the kangaroo court was anyway, if not to humiliate her)
If it was not a human life, the state (via the ‘panel’) had no compelling legal interest in the fetus, which should have had no more legal significance than her appendix. At any rate, there is no context in which the state should have had any opinion on her ‘morals.’
I feel sympathy for her and the uneccessary humilation she was subjected to. I have greater concern for the fetus, who wasn’t humiliated, but murdered.
I think the issue of welfare and the proper role of government are important issues. This issue is very complex and some very interesting arguments can be made on both sides of the political aisle.
But I do not think this is relevent to this discussion, for if it is a human life the absence of adequate social services can never be a reason to essentially kill unborn children.
Does this issue require discussion? yes. Is [tremondous] improvement in many, many ways, many if not most, are outside the purview of the state necessary? yes.
Answers are needed. But killing babies is not the answer.
In fairness to me, I haven’t at any point suggested that people shouldn’t have sex.
My message has been clear: Human life begins at conception.
Along those lines it would seem appropriate that:
People use better judgement. (certainly better than we see regularly)
Show restraint when it is appropriate. (I do not believe the average 19 year old has the requisite emotional, mental, and financial maturity to accept the potential results from being sexually active)
People have a better grasp of the subtle and less than subtle impact of their decisions and non-decisions.
4)Accept personal responsibility for their choices, and understand that life is often ‘unfair’ or unpredictable. But if it a fetus is a human life it is a function of our character that we don’t kill the unborn—even when it is the easiest thing to do.
I didn’t watch the hearings, but I did hear 4 or 5 hours worth during windshield time.
Of course not! But if the fetus is a human life, what shall we do? Shall we authorize the killing of unborn children because some will seek illegal abortions, thereby putting themselves and their unborn children at risk?
I do not believe that the state should have no compassion for the anguish and unplanned pregnancy can cause. But if the fetus is a human life, the women in your scenario are dying in the process of killing another human.
What? I’m talking about self-defense against a robber, not about anything that the robber is doing. Go back and read again.
“Death of the conceptus” is the inevitable result of an abortion, but that doesn’t mean it is not incidental to its (legally recognized) purpose. Just as homelessness is often the result of eviction, but is not the primary intent. Just as split ends are the result of hair bleaching, but not its main objective.
I sense that you understand this perfectly well, but are being purposefully obtuse. The probabilty of an consequence has nothing to do with whether that is a intended consequence.
How do you adopt out a month-old zygote? Do you know of any technology that would allow us to keep a first trimester fetus allive? I don’t.
Does DianaG’s right to life entitle her to your kidney?
I don’t believe a misgynist like you would ever feel sympathy with a female, even if she was on fire.
You can’t murder a fetus, anymore than you can a tumor or kidney.
Nobody is suggesting “killing babies.”
Lie. You’ve repeatedly made it clear that the punishment for a female who has sex should be the ruin of her life, or just plain death.
Something you’ve asserted, and never tried to argue, or even acknowledge those who ask for an argument.
Yet again, it’s not, so your arguement is useless.
IT’S NOT A HUMAN LIFE YOU UTTER FOOL ! It has no mind, therefore it’s not a person ! This is nothing more than your excuse to inflict your malignance on women.
Excellent question and one that I don’t think can be answered easily.
I think those are deeply personal issues and must be answered for each woman/family based on the advice of their doctor.
It’s not my place to answer for someone else, and I don’t think the state has any right to impose on a woman the risk of death.
Personally, I would find a 1% risk to be insignificant—so insignificant as to be zero as a practical matter.
But among the reasons I have heard—and of course all of them here----only the imminent death of another human being,the mother creates a situation in which a judgement needs to be made as to live and who will die, and that because a death----some death—is a near certainty if no action is taken.
It is no longer a question of the value of the child in the womb—that goes unquestioned. The question now is, “Who do we save?”
The answer to that is neither mine or the state’s.
Not to step on toes here, but I couldn’t help but notice that you just skirted around the whole question, without answering anything that was actually asked of your viewpoint.
OMG, el, switch teams and marry me. I’ll rub your feet and feed you lasagna.
Does anyone else find it interesting that both the nurses in this thread are pro-choice? Or that the majority of health care professionals advocate sex education as a part of high school curriculum? Ignorance does nothing to stop teens from having sex. It’s a biological response. They’re going to do it. Despite their good judgement, despite everything their parents have told them, despite best intentions to keep it saved for marriage. And as long as there are paranoid parents out there trying to keep them neutered, those teens will lie to their parents. It’s a self defeating action. When was the last time you can recall telling a 15 year old “whatever you do, DON’T do that!” and they listened? I have one. He can’t wait to run out and do what I tell him not to. It would shock me not at all if the raindog posts sometime in the next two years that he’s going to become a grandfather. Because he honestly believes that if he ignores something, it won’t affect him.
You can ignore me all you want, raindog. I’ll keep pointing out your inconsistencies and your dishonesty and your hypocracy. You’re not rising above it by ignoring me. You’re proving my point.
Done! I’ll do anything for a foot massage, and none of the meatless lasagna, kay? I’ll bring the wine.
This is because nurses tend to live in reality. We’re pragmatists at heart.
Yep-I’m a female and I used the word “fuck” and I called him stupid(AND I disagreed with a Male–ooh, horrors!), so out goes me, as well. Maybe there is some ostrich blood in him?
