Does anyone think to consider the rights of the Abortionee?

[Orion]

Sorry for being selfish but I um... value the human species above anything else.

No you don't. Ideologically you might, but in reality you value yourself first, then your immediate family, then your community, then your nation, then the world.

It's impossible for someone to value the whole species above everything else. The very mechanisms of your own survival dictate that you come first before any other factor.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Sorry for being selfish but I um... value the human species above anything else.

I value myself, my family and friends, and my nation. As long as they're good, and there's enough other humans for breeding stock and trade partners, I couldn't give a damn less about the human species.

When I think of your post I get an image of an eco-fascist that wants to sterilize the human race to save the earth.

No, I value human life in general. I'm just not as concerned with individual human lives.

 

[FederalRepublic]

I certainly can. They are both conditions under which it is known that innocent children will be killed. If you know this and do it anyway, you are deliberately killing babies.

No. It's more like the difference between accidentally hitting a deer with your car and cutting one's throat with a blade.

 

[FederalRepublic]

No you don't. Ideologically you might, but in reality you value yourself first, then your immediate family, then your community, then your nation, then the world.

Yourself, family, community, nation, world...all people. After that comes animals. I would kill the last polar bear on earth if it was attacking someone I didn't know.

 

[Orion]

Yourself, family, community, nation, world...all people. After that comes animals. I would kill the last polar bear on earth if it was attacking someone I didn't know.

But would you defend your child from a human you didn't know coming to kill him/her?

Would you kill another human who was attacking you with the intent to kill?

Your line of reasoning has nothing to do with what I was talking about, as I was not talking about animals. There is a priority sequence of who/what you care about. It's a warm platitude to say that you value the whole human race, but you still put yourself first.

 

[Wake]

Please don't say I value myself first and foremost. That's not the point. The point is that I value ALL humans OVER all animals. That's what I mean. If we want to go your route and get uber-technical, then we'd all value food first because we need food. But wait, you'd be able to survive a little bit without food... so oxygen would be what all humans value first... BUT WAIT---one can still struggle and gasp until dying from lack of oxygen... so WATER is what is most important first and foremost.... BUT WAIT, atoms... hell, we need---must---value atoms first and foremost... BUT WAIT---

 

[Orion]

Please don't say I value myself first and foremost. That's not the point. The point is that I value ALL humans OVER all animals. That's what I mean. If we want to go your route and get uber-technical, then we'd all value food first because we need food. But wait, you'd be able to survive a little bit without food... so oxygen would be what all humans value first... BUT WAIT---one can still struggle and gasp until dying from lack of oxygen... so WATER is what is most important first and foremost.... BUT WAIT, atoms... hell, we need---must---value atoms first and foremost... BUT WAIT---

Oh I see... you value all humans over animals. Good for you. It doesn't make much sense to me, given that animals and nature are our source of life, but ok.

You are just being obtuse now. My point was that each human has a priority sequence over which humans it cares about, and for many, fetuses don't qualify. Women who want to abort get called selfish... and to that I say, so what? She wants to live her life unburdened. It's no different than one person stepping over the back of another in order to be more comfortable, or one nation crushing another for its own benefit.

You may value human life over all else, but I don't think you really understand human nature that much.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Valuing human life is subjective.

All too often I believe that people *think* they value life by "giving life a chance" - but it stops there. There's more to being "alive" than being born.

 

[Paschendale]

Valuing human life is subjective.

All too often I believe that people *think* they value life by "giving life a chance" - but it stops there. There's more to being "alive" than being born.

Well said. Simply existing is not having a life. Ask anyone who lives as a slave. Or ask Patrick Henry if he'd accept an answer other than "liberty" or "death". Control over one's own body and the ability to make one's own choices are required for that liberty. Forcing a woman to carry a child against her will is denying her that liberty. She has earned that liberty and worked for it throughout her life. A fetus has earned nothing, and the world will not notice or mourn its passing. One or the other must be sacrificed. I am not willing to tell a woman that I should have more jurisdiction over her body than she.

 

[ecofarm]

The average animal is morally superior to the average person and the average plant is more useful. Just a bit of water, at the right place and time, is far more valuable than the average person.

People just aren't that great. Neither is any other species, and extinctions are a part of ecology. As long as I leave a place better than I found it, what will be will be.

Forcing a woman to carry a child against her will is denying her that liberty.

And allowing her to kill it is denying it any liberty. Like protest zones, one right trumps another. The important thing to consider is how to balance the rights of each party. Like, "your right ends (whichever it is) before it targets innocents for death".

 

[Gladiator]

And allowing her to kill it is denying it any liberty. Like protest zones, one right trumps another. The important thing to consider is how to balance the rights of each party. Like, "your right ends (whichever it is) before it targets innocents for death".

Republican Presidents have been blocking funding of contraceptives for the poor of the world. Obama has been reversing this over the past two years. Pro-Lifers now control the US House, for 2011-2012, and can block funding for any contracpetives.

Denying access to birth control for the poor of the world, for the sake of reducing abortions, creates a counter-balance of malnutrition due to unsustainable levels of population in poor areas for the world. Abstinence Education instead of family planning may reduce the number of abortions, in the short term, but does not have the effect of long term moderation of over-population resulting in shortages of drinking water and food, and killing real, breathing children, 22,000 per day.

Advocates For Youth - Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact




//

 

[samsmart]

We speak of rights and entitlements. Why do we not consider the entitlement to life of the unborn?

Well, here's the truth of the matter.

Whenever we talk about the rights of one group, it inherently interferes with the right of another group. For example, the right of workers to unionize interferes with the right of business owners to manage their businesses. The right for people of faith to have their religious views expressed in public school interferes with the right of people of different faiths or people of no faiths to prevent their children from being exposed something they don't want their children exposed to. The right for people to practice free speech with profanities interferes with the right of people who don't want to be around it.

So the question then becomes, "Of these two rights, which do we value more?" Do we give more value to the right of the conceived to develop or do we give more value to the right of the woman to make medical decisions regarding her reproductive rights for herself?

 

[mac]

I don't think we should value human life, at least in the general sense, so highly. There are more important things.

Then war shouldn't bother you, and it's a bit hypocritical (or dishonest) to use something that doesn't really bother you as a counterpoint to something else that doesn't really matter to you.

That apathy is what perpetuates war, terrorism and so many other things. Personally, I think it is a defense mechanism, not a natural lack of emotion.

 

[MaggieD]

Just read in Chicago Tribune about a mom five miles from me who slashed her 4-year-old's throat in a dry bathtub so viciously the little girl was almost decapitated. She then cut herself on her wrist and, unfortunately, didn't die.

As a society, I think we'd be better off concentrating on keeping our children and babies safe...and almost being happy that we're letting women abort at will within time limits.

Dying a horrific death at the hands of one's mother has got to be life's most painful irony. It is so evil as to defy description.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Well said. Simply existing is not having a life. Ask anyone who lives as a slave. Or ask Patrick Henry if he'd accept an answer other than "liberty" or "death". Control over one's own body and the ability to make one's own choices are required for that liberty. Forcing a woman to carry a child against her will is denying her that liberty. She has earned that liberty and worked for it throughout her life. A fetus has earned nothing, and the world will not notice or mourn its passing. One or the other must be sacrificed. I am not willing to tell a woman that I should have more jurisdiction over her body than she.

If the world was a Utopia - then I'd have a different view.

 

[prometeus]

No. It's more like the difference between accidentally hitting a deer with your car and cutting one's throat with a blade.

Not really. There is nothing accidental about collateral damage or scores of other reasons thousands die.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Then war shouldn't bother you, and it's a bit hypocritical (or dishonest) to use something that doesn't really bother you as a counterpoint to something else that doesn't really matter to you.

That's a fair complaint. The point I'm trying to make is that just as one does not seem to bother us excessively, neither should the other. They are both inevitable, and they are both necessary, and there are better beneficiaries for our compassion.

That apathy is what perpetuates war, terrorism and so many other things. Personally, I think it is a defense mechanism, not a natural lack of emotion.

My therapist says the same thing, but it doesn't change the practicality of the matter. Sometimes war and abortion are simply the best options, despite the cost in innocent lives.

 

[mac]

My therapist says the same thing, but it doesn't change the practicality of the matter. Sometimes war and abortion are simply the best options, despite the cost in innocent lives.

The "best" options as seen from a certain point of view. Apathy for humanity assists in making them fit in that category.

 

[Gladiator]

Apathy for the rights of the unborn needs to be balanced against the apathy for the rights of real people.

If W Bush had allowed the money appropriated by congress for family planning, to be used for family planning, instead of divereted to abstinence-only education, would there be fewer children dying today, instead of 22,000 per day dying of malnutrition issues? Is interfering with family planning funding actaully apathy for real people and apathy for the eventual untimely deaths, of the unborn, in the future?

Some 27 years ago, Reagan, US President instituted the Mexico City policy of curtailing family planning in Mexico. The population of unwanted children increased in Mexico. Today, is it Reagan's unplanned children who are involved with drug violence? Is it a balance of Reagan's apathy for the mothers and families of unplanned and unwanted children, in comparison to a partisanly politically popular concern of the unkown, and unborn?

So for the next two years, the partisanly biased Republican majority in the house may exercise apathy for the rights of mothers and families throughout the Earth, by blocking funding for family planning, under the guise of caring for the unborn and unknown.




//

 

[mac]

Apathy for the rights of the unborn needs to be balanced against the apathy for the rights of real people.

Did apathy for the rights of slaves need to be balanced against the rights of real people?

 

[Gladiator]

Did apathy for the rights of slaves need to be balanced against the rights of real people?

Apathy for the unborn is a buzz phrase for the Pro-Life movement. Pro-lifers don't like to talk about apathy for responsible family planning, or the consequences of curtailed family planning services like the Mexican drug wars, the crime on the US-Mexican border, or the apathy for 22,000 children who died on Earth yesterday, of whose suffering, some would have been saved by the increased availability of family planning..

 

[Panache]

Perhaps I am merely a religious freak, but when I think of the person that is developing, I cannot help but think that person should be able to live. Facts alone, I think, should not guide us. Otherwise, how do we have a mind or consciousness since we cannot see such?

Oh yeah? Well I am even more righteous. When I see a sexy woman, and I think of the person that could potentially develop as a result of my having intercourse with her, I cannot help but think that person should be able to live. Therefore it is murder for her to refuse to have sex with me, knowing that it will prevent the potential Panache Jr. from ever having a chance to live.

 

[majora$$hole]

I can respect any position that is legitimately, consistently pro-life: I.e., opposing capital punishment, opposing the hunting of animals for sport, condemning cruel experimentation on animals, supporting human rights, opposing wars of aggression, supporting vegetarianism or veganism, etc. If someone who subscribed to all or most of these was also against abortion, I could respect their viewpoint though I would still disagree. But the people I've seen who describe themselves as "pro-life" are often some of the most virulently anti-human, anti-life people on every subject other than fetuses, so it doesn't strike me as an honest movement so much as a kind of perverse displacement of neglected compassion on to something that probably doesn't need it.

ha ha, how can you be pro-life and have no problem with killing poor defenseless plants that can't even get up and walk away to defend themselves. oh and while i'm on my box did you know the money from the hunting license hunters buy goes DIRECTLY to the care of the animals? have you ever bought said license and just ripped it up? i thought not, so you have no right to look down on hunters imo.

 

[mac]

Apathy for the unborn is a buzz phrase for the Pro-Life movement. Pro-lifers don't like to talk about apathy for responsible family planning, or the consequences of curtailed family planning services like the Mexican drug wars, the crime on the US-Mexican border, or the apathy for 22,000 children who died on Earth yesterday, of whose suffering, some would have been saved by the increased availability of family planning..

First, Mexico is responsible for Mexico. Second, how planned parenthood is managed in any country doesn't legitimize the killing of anyone...including unborn children.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Did apathy for the rights of slaves need to be balanced against the rights of real people?

Yes, in fact it was.

The difference: a child depends 100% on a guardian or provider for all of their needs - and gives nothing back. Emotional - fulfillment and nothing more comes from a child being in your life. A slave, however, provides you with the means for you to survive - without little recourse or compensation.