Does the right to life exist?

[Temporal]

Wrong. People are debating separate objective points and mistaking them to be the same. It is a distinction that apparently I understand and that you and Grannie don't.

WHOOSH!!

That is the point flying right over your head. hey, good job hiding from the other post to you though...

No need to be rude about it... am I being rude to you?

The part in bold seems strange to me. There isn't much that is concrete in this debate. I think most people agree that a fetus is a living organism - where we differ is on the creation of positive rights for it, and especially ones that override the bodily rights of the pregnant woman.

If you feel that your POV is very concrete then good for you. I'm glad you know where you stand. However, the objectivity is only relative to you, which is why I don't see how my spiritual beliefs surrounding abortion are any less important than your existential ones.

 

[Bodi]

Come now, just because you choose dogma over freedom, it does not negate the fact that people have and will gladly risk and give their lives to be free and to guarantee freedom to their society.

What dogma is it that I am following then?

Not being dictated by morality coercers when and how to procreate is such a freedom and that you do not appreciate it is rather sad.

I am confused as to what this is saying... are you saying that I have a limited view regarding who can or should have children or their marital status or something? I think that you are assuming things and that seems certain by your conclusion that my view is sad. If you want clarification, ask.

 

[prometeus]

What dogma is it that I am following then?

The one that dictates to you that a fetus is the same as a born child and it is more important that the wishes of the woman who makes it possible for it to continue living. What particular flavor you call it is not so relevant.

I am confused as to what this is saying... are you saying that I have a limited view regarding who can or should have children or their marital status or something?

You seem to be of the position that if a woman becomes pregnant she MUST gestate and give birth. That IS dictating to the woman in question when to procreate.

I think that you are assuming things and that seems certain by your conclusion that my view is sad. If you want clarification, ask.

I do not think that any clarification is needed. I feel that it is a sad position in which personal freedom of a woman in this case, is less important than your position. What do you believe I needed to be clarified and why?

 

[Bodi]

No need to be rude about it... am I being rude to you?

The part in bold seems strange to me. There isn't much that is concrete in this debate. I think most people agree that a fetus is a living organism - where we differ is on the creation of positive rights for it, and especially ones that override the bodily rights of the pregnant woman.

If you feel that your POV is very concrete then good for you. I'm glad you know where you stand. However, the objectivity is only relative to you, which is why I don't see how my spiritual beliefs surrounding abortion are any less important than your existential ones.

I was not intending to be rude, in all sincerity... Sorry.

I think that we are talking about two different things. My point was that many people are arguing objective stances but misapplying them... thus making objective arguments seem like subjective ones.

 

[Temporal]

I was not intending to be rude, in all sincerity... Sorry.

I think that we are talking about two different things. My point was that many people are arguing objective stances but misapplying them... thus making objective arguments seem like subjective ones.

I think the objective/subjective division is a false one. I just see people trying to work with their own thoughts and they're getting frustrated when other people don't agree with them. Hence why this thread is now 41 pages long.

If people could learn to sit with their own ideas and evaluate them in a sincere, internal way that does not involve projecting discord unto others, I think a lot of our nation's problems would be solved, including the abortion debate.

This is all too cerebral and hypothetical. The situation would change instantly if we were all sitting in a room together. It would also change instantly if there were a pregnant woman in front of us telling us her story. Right now we're at our computers, and the only common connection between us is that we are all online and we're exchanging text.

The outside world is diverse and that's why I lean toward pro-choice. That, and my own spiritual beliefs on the matter which are essentially: "what is meant to be will be".

 

[Bodi]

The one that dictates to you that a fetus is the same as a born child and it is more important that the wishes of the woman who makes it possible for it to continue living. What particular flavor you call it is not so relevant.

Dogma just threw me off. I think that most people think that a life is more important than a wish. The issue is that many people don't consider a developing human to be a life worth saving... and that is pretty sad.

You seem to be of the position that if a woman becomes pregnant she MUST gestate and give birth. That IS dictating to the woman in question when to procreate.

Oh, you are confused then... within 11 weeks a woman can have an abortion, though I feel it is the wrong thing to do. After that though, she should have to run the course of the natural pregnancy. Choice does not trump life. It is simply immoral and stupid to think otherwise. It lacks logic, as I have repeatedly shown people.

I do not think that any clarification is needed. I feel that it is a sad position in which personal freedom of a woman in this case, is less important than your position. What do you believe I needed to be clarified and why?

I am not denying the personal freedom of a woman, I am protecting the life of the innocent developing human and that is a massive distinction. You can try to paint me as oppressive if you like, but that is naive and utterly ridiculous.

 

[Bodi]

I think the objective/subjective division is a false one. I just see people trying to work with their own thoughts and they're getting frustrated when other people don't agree with them. Hence why this thread is now 41 pages long.

If people could learn to sit with their own ideas and evaluate them in a sincere, internal way that does not involve projecting discord unto others, I think a lot of our nation's problems would be solved, including the abortion debate.

This is all too cerebral and hypothetical. The situation would change instantly if we were all sitting in a room together. It would also change instantly if there were a pregnant woman in front of us telling us her story. Right now we're at our computers, and the only common connection between us is that we are all online and we're exchanging text.

The outside world is diverse and that's why I lean toward pro-choice. That, and my own spiritual beliefs on the matter which are essentially: "what is meant to be will be".

Good points. I think this out and talk here as I would and have to a pregnant woman. I condemn nobody. This is a tough issue. I give my point of view here as I would in person, calmly and generally politely. Once in a while here I get a little carried away, but that is more out of fun than anything. I am not perfect. If I say that something is stupid, I will explain that. I would rather have a woman have an abortion than to force her to have yet another starving child simply because she is ignorant. My stance is that all things being equal , the baby should be paramount. The real world is complicated and I am certainly not making blanket statements as I know that some do. I often get labelled as pro-life zealot when I am actually very balanced and open. Good posts Temporal.

 

[Temporal]

Good points. I think this out and talk here as I would and have to a pregnant woman. I condemn nobody. This is a tough issue. I give my point of view here as I would in person, calmly and generally politely. Once in a while here I get a little carried away, but that is more out of fun than anything. I am not perfect. If I say that something is stupid, I will explain that. I would rather have a woman have an abortion than to force her to have yet another starving child simply because she is ignorant. My stance is that all things being equal , the baby should be paramount. The real world is complicated and I am certainly not making blanket statements as I know that some do. I often get labelled as pro-life zealot when I am actually very balanced and open. Good posts Temporal.

I have to say that ideally I would like to see pregnancies come full term and babies be born. When I walk into a forest, I have respect for the life and the cycles I see there even though the life I am seeing is non-human. I just respect life. But I also acknowledge that my idea exists in a vacuum and that I can't possibly know all pregnant women and all variables that they may face. Like you said, it's a tough decision.

It's hard for me to know the value of my own life, the things that matter to me, or WHO I AM. When I then in turn think about telling someone else what to do with their life, it's a tough call and I'd rather not do it. Also, if I think about my own life in terms of my mother's decision to carry me to term... she could have just as easily have had an abortion, in which case I wouldn't exist, and in which case none of this would matter.

If this is just a matter of suffering, then I'm compassionate, but I remain inactive. Everyone suffers, everyone. Then eventually we pass on and the suffering ends in a relativistic way (based on my own beliefs). Either way, this whole thing is temporary, whether we were just a fetus when we pass on or we're a 90 year old in bed surrounded by family.

The idea of "right to life" is just one of those notions in a vacuum to me. You can't possibly know everything and every one. You can only try to know yourself!

 

[Forte_Voce]

That isn't enough to stop millions of women and young girls from aborting..

Yes, and laws against murder, speeding, and tax evasion are not enough to stop millions of people from murdering, speeding, and evading taxes. The law exists in itself, and its existence is entirely independent of the level to which it is followed.

 

[Forte_Voce]

Mac,

I think you can agree that we can't control others sexual behaviors. Sex isn't a function of human behavior that's for the sole purpose of procreating. If sex was for proliferating the species only...there would be a hell of a lot less people.

Obviously, humans do produce human offspring. But until that offspring is kicking, screaming, and crying...it's not a legal person despite your opinion that a fetus should be.

Personally, I'm pro-choice for a variety of debatable reasons.

But, there might be a solution that may appease pro-life folks.

1. Make all types of abortions illegal.

2. Create a BABY DRAFT BOARD that is very similar to the military draft.

3. All Pro-Lifers must register with the BDB and he or she will be issued a draft number.

4. When a woman conceives and she doesn't want to have the baby...she notifies the Baby Draft Board.

5. The Baby Draft Board will have daily/weekly/monthly (whatever period is designated) drawings for draftees.

6. The Pro-Life Draftees selected with be responsible for the following:

(a) Become their drawn child's adopted parent
(b) Pay all prenatal expenses
(c) Pay all hospital expenses
(d) Pay all postnatal expenses
(e) Be responsible for all expense incurred until the child reaches 18 years of age or has graduated from high school, which ever comes first.

As unpleasant as that suggestion might be. I have to go back to my original comment. We, (you, me, everybody) are powerless over the sexual behaviors of others. Consequently, there will be unwanted pregnancies. Society is forced to deal with that issue because of laws that make it a social problem.

If all abortions are outlawed...would a solution be to imprison both the father and mother of an unwanted pregnancy should they (he/she/both) decide that abortion is the best option for them? America already has the largest prison population in the world.

If you don't mind me asking. Is your reasoning for not believing in the right of a woman to have an abortion related to your religion or just a personal reason?

And, what do you perceive as a possible solution to unwanted pregnancies, excluding stop having sex?

No, no, no. I fail to understand why the mother must take no responsibility for her actions. She is the one who engages in sexual activity. So why should her innocent human child (since the laws of biology state that two humans must make another human) pay with its life for her mistake? I don't understand why there is no responsibility taken for the mother's actions. I don't understand why women feel that they can engage in sexual activities and not take any responsibilities when she knew the risks of her actions (because I think we all learned in grade school where babies come from.) She is engaging in activities that she knows could produce a baby, and yet is willing not only to not take responsibility for her actions, but also kill the human she has growing inside of her.

 

[prometeus]

No, no, no. I fail to understand why the mother must take no responsibility for her actions.

She is and makes the decision on what is best for her and her conditions and situation. You have yet to provide any reason why "responsibility" MUST conform to your views.

She is the one who engages in sexual activity.

Yea, the slut, how dare she?

So why should her innocent human child

No ****, but you feel still compelled to repeat it, wonder why? Is it possible that due to lack of otherwise rational reasoning you have to resort to emotional appeal?

(since the laws of biology state that two humans must make another human) pay with its life for her mistake?

You are sure about that? Last I looked human were ALWAYS referred to as he or she, never as IT.

I don't understand why there is no responsibility taken for the mother's actions.

And why should this deficiency on your part concern us?

 

[prometeus]

Dogma just threw me off. I think that most people think that a life is more important than a wish. The issue is that many people don't consider a developing human to be a life worth saving... and that is pretty sad.

On the surface that IS true, but we MUST add just a bit more detail. It is not really that the life is not worth saving, but rather that freedom can not be sacrificed especially when it comes at the cost or morality coercion. In absence of that I am quite certain that the vast majority of people would want to save human life any time, even at cellular level.

Oh, you are confused then... within 11 weeks a woman can have an abortion, though I feel it is the wrong thing to do.

I keep forgetting that about your position and I am sorry because in essence it places our positions very close.

Choice does not trump life.

But it does more often for in pursuit of the wrong choice. Wars are a choice, so are revolutions, and a whole host other "activities" that I mentioned before that do cause death.

I am not denying the personal freedom of a woman, I am protecting the life of the innocent developing human and that is a massive distinction. You can try to paint me as oppressive if you like, but that is naive and utterly ridiculous.

As I said I keep forgetting that our positions are more alike than different.
Still these exchanges are a good thing, one never knows when a new perspective will be raised and who will raise it.

 

[Alyssa]

According to the US constitution, the right to life does exist. However, the arduous debate on how exactly one defines a person is the next step. Clearly, at conception a human being exists-in a sense that it has human DNA. Later in the development, the heart starts beating (approximately 23 days after conception). But does human DNA or a heart beat define personhood? Of course, the very nature of this debate is subjective. Opinions differ based on religion and points of reference. To me, the easiest cut off point is birth. This way, the subjective nature of morality doesn't prolong a reasonable solution to this problem. The fact is, there are so many children already born who cannot find good homes. Forcing the unwilling to give birth will add over a million each year. Where will these children go and who will help them? How can society continue to absorb the increasing cost of health care? There are so many facets to this debate, and religion simply has no place in public policy, imo.

 

[Bodi]

She is and makes the decision on what is best for her and her conditions and situation. You have yet to provide any reason why "responsibility" MUST conform to your views.

I guess the problem that many of us have is that most people view not killing something as more responsible than killing. I kill a rabid dog without hesitation, but not Lassie. By your argument, aren't you saying that if what was best for me and my condition and situation was to kill my 3 month old, then I would be justified in doing so? To make this a strange debate, could one Siamese Twin kill the other if it was in their best interest?

You are sure about that? Last I looked human were ALWAYS referred to as he or she, never as IT.

You never watched SNL's Adventures with Pat, did you? :rofl

 

[Bodi]

On the surface that IS true, but we MUST add just a bit more detail. It is not really that the life is not worth saving, but rather that freedom can not be sacrificed especially when it comes at the cost or morality coercion. In absence of that I am quite certain that the vast majority of people would want to save human life any time, even at cellular level.

Understood. I just fail to see how anybody can equate pregnancy to forced servitude if they don't want said pregnancy. It is just such an extreme emotional appeal that it makes the entire position ridiculous. A woman's body is designed to get pregnant and to throw out this whole aspect and focus on freedom being "sacrificed" is just a view that I will never understand.

I keep forgetting that about your position and I am sorry because in essence it places our positions very close.

All good. I often play more pro-life than I am just to push people's arguments to their limit.

But it does more often for in pursuit of the wrong choice. Wars are a choice, so are revolutions, and a whole host other "activities" that I mentioned before that do cause death.

Agreed, but since WWII, not many nations at all have purposely killed innocent people. We have moved beyond justifying the killing of the innocent, or so I always have hoped.

As I said I keep forgetting that our positions are more alike than different.
Still these exchanges are a good thing, one never knows when a new perspective will be raised and who will raise it.

Agreed....

 

[Alyssa]

I guess the problem that many of us have is that most people view not killing something as more responsible than killing. I kill a rabid dog without hesitation, but not Lassie. By your argument, aren't you saying that if what was best for me and my condition and situation was to kill my 3 month old, then I would be justified in doing so?

Under no circumstances can one compare murdering a 3 month old to abortion which is an actual medical procedure.

 

[Bodi]

Under no circumstances can one compare murdering a 3 month old to abortion which is an actual medical procedure.

Right, the "medical procedure" versus "murder" argument. How those blinders working for ya?

can we compare killing a baby five minutes after birth that arrived three weeks early with one that is overdue by three weeks but not yet born? Technically, the late baby is one and a half months more developed than the early baby... what do you think here?

 

[NGNM85]

Right, the "medical procedure" versus "murder" argument. How those blinders working for ya?

can we compare killing a baby five minutes after birth that arrived three weeks early with one that is overdue by three weeks but not yet born? Technically, the late baby is one and a half months more developed than the early baby... what do you think here?

That's an excellent point. However, in both cases, the embryo is fully developed, it is a baby. This is worlds away from the 75%+ abortions which are performed in the first 10-11 weeks.

More to the point, I certainly believe in the right to life. However, I believe that only actual humans have this right.

 

[mac]

That's an excellent point. However, in both cases, the embryo is fully developed, it is a baby. This is worlds away from the 75%+ abortions which are performed in the first 10-11 weeks.

More to the point, I certainly believe in the right to life. However, I believe that only actual humans have this right.

Then define "actual" human.

 

[mac]

Under no circumstances can one compare murdering a 3 month old to abortion which is an actual medical procedure.

How about a one day old baby vs say a -1 day old baby?

 

[Alyssa]

Right, the "medical procedure" versus "murder" argument. How those blinders working for ya?

can we compare killing a baby five minutes after birth that arrived three weeks early with one that is overdue by three weeks but not yet born? Technically, the late baby is one and a half months more developed than the early baby... what do you think here?

No blinders here. In fact, once I quit believing in dogmatic truisms, things became clearer, albeit less pleasant. My problem with this debate is that anyone can come up with countless examples showing inconsistencies with the other person's argument. This is because this particular debate is full of technicalities. In some abortion procedures, the baby is "born" breach and a sharp object is then inserted into the skull to kill it. Personally, I find such methods to be barbaric and truly disgusting. However, for the purposes of creating a public policy that can actually be enforced without creating even more problems, society needs to make a clear boundary-which is birth. Whether or not a child is born early or late is irrelevant. It's simply not possible to force the unwilling to become parents. Think of the lives these poor children will have when they're unwanted.

How about a one day old baby vs say a -1 day old baby?

Not much of a difference at all. Still, it is much easier to force parents not to kill their children after birth than before birth. Sadly,something like 3 to 5 children are murdered everyday in this country by their own parents. Millions of children live horrible lives in abusive and neglectful homes. It seems more logical to focus our attention on those poor kids than trying to save those who haven't even been born yet.

 

[mac]

No blinders here. In fact, once I quit believing in dogmatic truisms, things became clearer, albeit less pleasant. My problem with this debate is that anyone can come up with countless examples showing inconsistencies with the other person's argument. This is because this particular debate is full of technicalities. In some abortion procedures, the baby is "born" breach and a sharp object is then inserted into the skull to kill it. Personally, I find such methods to be barbaric and truly disgusting. However, for the purposes of creating a public policy that can actually be enforced without creating even more problems, society needs to make a clear boundary-which is birth. Whether or not a child is born early or late is irrelevant. It's simply not possible to force the unwilling to become parents. Think of the lives these poor children will have when they're unwanted.



Not much of a difference at all. Still, it is much easier to force parents not to kill their children after birth than before birth. Sadly,something like 3 to 5 children are murdered everyday in this country by their own parents. Millions of children live horrible lives in abusive and neglectful homes. It seems more logical to focus our attention on those poor kids than trying to save those who haven't even been born yet.

i don't see any reason that the two focuses are mutually exclusive.

 

[Wake]

Why do we assume that if we don't abort the unborn, that they will live abused and neglected lives? Were they to live, who knows how their lives would be like. A stark example is Oprah Winfrey; she was born into a poor family yet became successful. She was not aborted; we cannot assume the unaborted will live sad lives.

 

[Alyssa]

Why do we assume that if we don't abort the unborn, that they will live abused and neglected lives? Were they to live, who knows how their lives would be like. A stark example is Oprah Winfrey; she was born into a poor family yet became successful. She was not aborted; we cannot assume the unaborted will live sad lives.

The point I was trying to make is that already in the US, over $110,000 children are waiting for adoption in foster care. Imagine another million children added to that number. Sure, there are stories of success, but not everyone can withstand abuse and neglect and become a millionaire.

 

[Bodi]

No blinders here. In fact, once I quit believing in dogmatic truisms, things became clearer, albeit less pleasant. My problem with this debate is that anyone can come up with countless examples showing inconsistencies with the other person's argument. This is because this particular debate is full of technicalities. In some abortion procedures, the baby is "born" breach and a sharp object is then inserted into the skull to kill it. Personally, I find such methods to be barbaric and truly disgusting. However, for the purposes of creating a public policy that can actually be enforced without creating even more problems, society needs to make a clear boundary-which is birth. Whether or not a child is born early or late is irrelevant. It's simply not possible to force the unwilling to become parents. Think of the lives these poor children will have when they're unwanted.



Not much of a difference at all. Still, it is much easier to force parents not to kill their children after birth than before birth. Sadly,something like 3 to 5 children are murdered everyday in this country by their own parents. Millions of children live horrible lives in abusive and neglectful homes. It seems more logical to focus our attention on those poor kids than trying to save those who haven't even been born yet.

Blinders was in reference to "medical procedure"... since they are both medical procedures.

Why can't we save unborn babies as well as those that have been born and are abused? Why not both? I would think that you would favor that and try to stop us from building billion dollar fighter jets instead. Think of all the homeless and abused children that we could save with just one less billion dollar fighter jet.