blastula said:
What do you mean by "two lives are in conflict"? Are you suggesting a child is threatening to kill the life of the mother? If that's truly the case, would a mother resort to violence as the only option to kill the child, or should the mother sought a non-lethal way to overcome the child and sought medical and psychiatric help for her child?
The child cannot have life unless the mother sacrifices her autonomy. That's a conflict. There are almost no comparable circumstances; in almost any other case in which a person requires assistance to sustain life, that assistance can come from any person; thus if someone gives that assistance, it is a voluntary sacrifice. That is not the case with a pregnant woman. In the rare situations in which a mother's life is in actual danger from the child's continued life, the mother should abort the fetus, in my opinion, but if she chooses not to, that is her right, as well. All I want is for her to have the choice.
blastula said:
To say that the parental duty to care for one's children is slavery and the children are the masters is a stretch of reality. If you feel that your needs which are subsevient to your child are not right, then let somebody else adopt your child. But, you certainly cannot neglect or take the life of your child simply because it is not in the convenience of your needs.
Precisely. You have the option to give the child to another, after its birth, and thus any sacrifice you make to care for that child is voluntary, and quite noble, in my eyes. But a pregnant woman does not have the option to give up the care of the child to another: thus the sacrifice is not voluntary, and it is slavery. The only way to escape that is to allow the mother to remove the fetus -- kill the baby, before you jump on my use of the word "fetus."
No, you do not have the option to allow the child to come to harm just because it is inconvenient, because you have an option that allows you to preserve your autonomy,
and the child's life: adoption. A pregnant woman does not have that option, which makes her a slave of the child, barring the option of abortion.
blastula said:
Without life, there is no reverse.
Do we really need to keep going round and round with this? Yes, life is important, life is one of the most basic rights, and there is nothing without life. I agree. Let it go.
blastula said:
Yes, it exposes your illogical argument.
Because a psychopath committed a heinous action that has no relation to what I am speaking about, seeing as how she was not pregnant with her children at the time? I'd say you need to study more logic.
blastula said:
Nobody in this world is arguing that a child deserves life more than an adult deserves life. A child's life is just as deserving as an adult's life when considering the issue regarding autonomy of an adult.
Yes, Menendez brothers and Kip Kinkle are children who took the lives of their parents and they are very wrong to do so. Society did not accept their plea for their murders. Neither do I argue for their right of autonnmy to murder against the right to life of their parents. But you on ther other hand are arguing for the right of autonomy of an adult against the right of life of a child. And therefore, your psychopathic examples are inapplicable.
Ah, but your psychopathic example proves your point. Interesting use of hypocrisy as a debate technique.
Their autonomy was not threatened by their parents, so again, these examples are irrelevant. I was using them only to point out that your use of a psychopathic killer is also irrelevant.
blastula said:
Without freedom of choice there is still life if life is not taken. With life, there is always hope. Without life there is utterly no hope. Yes, go ask a slave.
And yet, there are countless examples of slaves killing themselves rather than continuing to live as slaves. There are countles examples of slave women killing their own children, rather than allowing them to live as slaves. And there are countless examples of women killing themselves in efforts to escape pregnancy. Are you sure that life without choice is worth living?
I realize that this is simply the impasse, the point where we cannot agree: I think autonomy is as important as life, and you think simple biological existence is more important than anything. Tell me, do you oppose war? Do you oppose the death penalty? Do you oppose the ban on federal funding of stem cell research? Because it seems to me, if there is always hope as long as there is life, then you should always fight for life, in every case. I also hope that you would prefer to remain in a vegetative state for thirty years should the unthinkable happen. But I would appreciate it if you would recognize that not everyone shares your values.
blastula said:
So, you're suggesting that you would not support a child's right from the sexual exploitation of an adult pedophile or an adult child porn industry. Well, I have nothing to say.
It staggers me that you did not recognize my sarcasm. But, so be it. Look at it this way: ask a ridiculous question, you're going to get a ridiculous answer.
blastula said:
You are trying to confuse the argument here. I know very well your position regarding the right of a woman's autonomy to her body vs the right of life of a fetus. It's been harsh and reharsh ad nauseum in the past. That's not the question I have issue with you. The issue I have with you is regarding your previous assertion pertaining to the right of life of a child vs the right of autonomy of an adult. Or are you now acknowledging that a fetus is indeed a child? Now, that's a new confession if that's your admission.
I refuse to get drawn into the semantics argument. It's a child, it's a fetus, it's an innocent little pink baby; the words make absolutely no difference to me. As long as its life is dependent upon the sacrifice of the woman's autonomy, it does not have the right to life. Period. Nobody has the right to make another a slave.
As for confusing the argument, you're the one who brought up pedophiles.
blastula said:
The right of a child to survive and be protected from pedophiles are always in conflict with each other. Absolutely so, no question about it.
You don't understand what I mean. The pedophile does not have a right that conflicts with the child's right, which means there is no justification for the pedophile's acts, which certainly do interfere with a child's rights. That means a pedophile's abuse of a child is always, absolutely, uncategorically wrong, evil, and punishable. This is not the case with a pregnant mother: the child's right to life and the mother's right to autonomy are in direct conflict. It is a unique situation, which requires a unique solution.
blastula said:
How do you come up with such a parallel is beyond me.
For criminy's sake, YOU BROUGHT IT UP! I was talking about pregnant women, you are the one who thought pedophilia had something to do with my position. Don't criticize me for your confused arguments.