22 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageObviously. Otherwise, you'd have mob rule with the peasants taking justice into their own hands and disposing of the guilty carrying cases without so much as a by your leave. Professionally trained torturers would have to be provided by the anti-abortionists to get to the facts regarding these terrible crimes.
Imagine the denouncements, the hysteria...this scenario would call for a specialised Inquisition.
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThis has already happened, has it not? Pro-life murder & whatnot. Thankfully Prez Bush has loopholed legal torture into possibility.
Obviously. Otherwise, you'd have mob rule with the peasants taking justice into their own hands and disposing of the guilty carrying cases without so much as a by your leave.
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderInteresting points. For another thing, when a human being dies, the rights they have are different from the rights they had while alive, due to a change in properties. If this is the case for the change in properties resulting from death, why isn't it also the case for the change in properties resulting from being born, and before that the change in properties when a fetus starts being able to feel pain (i.e. about 26 weeks into the pregnancy)?
Howardgee: If abortion is murder, then miscarriages should be investigated for manslaughter.
This would, of course, logically follow: since every miscarriage would be the death of a human being, the circumstances would have to be carefully investigated to ascertain whether the carrying case (i.e. pregnant woman) did anything or failed to do somet ...[text shortened]... Homicide detectives would be very busy under the brand new "a fetus is a human being" regime.
A pre-sentient fetus (i.e. a fetus before about 26 weeks) cannot feel pain, and thus it should warrant less rights than nonhuman animals, which *can* feel pain. A third-trimester fetus is a different matter, because it can now feel pain and is more developed in other ways.
Also, if a woman had the choice to abort earlier on but chose not to, then it's ethically/morally wrong for her to subsequently abort during the third trimester, unless there's a gross change of circumstances (e.g. medical). That being said, I still don't think third-trimester abortions should be illegal, since there can be domestic violence and marital rape cases (or prisoner of war cases) where the woman couldn't have chosen to abort earlier, and it would be a can of worms interrogating pregnant women to try to distinguish these cases from those where the woman had a choice earlier.
So essentially, "life" becomes more important in the third trimester, and "choice" becomes less important in those cases where the woman already had a choice and chose to keep the fetus.
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYou doing your mind reading tricks again no1?
So that's one vote for criminal sanctions against pregnant women who don't eat right or exercise enough or go to the doctors enough, etc. etc. etc. Any other of the anti-abortionists want to weigh in in support of such laws? After all, the pregnant woman is nothing more than a handy dandy carrying case for the fetus-human and her rights are completely ...[text shortened]... And "IT'S A BABY!" (God says so even though he actually don't in their fairy tale book).
You are projecting once again things I did not say!
I guess defending your points is easier when you can attack someone
for things they didn't say.
In your opinion, when does a life begin?
If you even have a clue when, what do you use to judge that? Does it
have anything to do with the life itself, or is it just its location in or
outside of the woman?
Kelly
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by KellyJaySomehow I knew you would try to make such a non-denial; you are the most transparent parrot ever born. If you are going to reply and quote my post and cite laws that imposes burdens on woman regarding children approvingly, it is only reasonable to suppose that you would support such laws as I stated. You would, but you're tooooooo much of a moral coward to say so. Instead you prefer to keep parroting the same thing over and over again without responding to other's points. This is typical of someone who really has nothing of consequence to say.
You doing your mind reading tricks again no1?
You are projecting once again things I did not say!
I guess defending your points is easier when you can attack someone
for things they didn't say.
In your opinion, when does a life begin?
If you even have a clue when, what do you use to judge that? Does it
have anything to do with the life itself, or is it just its location in or
outside of the woman?
Kelly
My opinion of when does a life begin is irrelevant to this discussion. I've specifically spelled out my argument against criminal laws against abortion based on fundamental rights, Natural Law theory and the effect such laws would have on a pregnant's woman's right to self-autonomy (it would effectively obliterate it). If you want to address my argument, go ahead. You haven't yet.
22 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseOf course, it is no such thing. If a fetus is a human being as you assert, then surely it has more than a right to life; it would have a right, like everyone else, not to be maimed or harmed by the actions of others, including its carrying case. Or do you regard a fetus-human as only a partial human being having less fundamental rights than a full one? If so, please explain why a fetus-human would have a right to life but not a right not to be harmed and cite examples of human beings who have the right to life but not the right not to be harmed.
ROFL. How is that for a slippery slope?
22 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are the only one between you and I that is concern about laws
Somehow I knew you would try to make such a non-denial; you are the most transparent parrot ever born. If you are going to reply and quote my post and cite laws that imposes burdens on woman regarding children approvingly, it is only reasonable to suppose that you would support such laws as I stated. You would, but you're tooooooo much of a moral coward ...[text shortened]... ould effectively obliterate it). If you want to address my argument, go ahead. You haven't yet.
and the rights of women when it comes to mankind’s laws on
abortion. As I stated before, I do not care about any man made law;
I do care about the value placed on the life within each woman that
is ‘with child’ as pregnancy use to be called, before the definitions and
sayings changed due to the abortion debate. Another saying that use
to be said was, “You’d be as safe as if you were in your mother’s
womb.” that saying has lost its old meaning too, since today it isn’t a
safe place to be if the life is still within the woman waiting to be born.
All laws can remain just as they are now, but if the life within each
woman becomes precious and valuable to every woman, then
abortions would stop, if the law changes outlawing abortion and the
lives within women are not precious and valuable to each woman,
abortions continue.
My discussions may be irrelevant to you, but since I don’t care what it
is you are babbling about when it comes to laws, so what! You don’t
think it matters what is inside of a woman while she is pregnant, as I
have looked at your point of view over time. It seems you don’t value
anything within women as long as it is within her. To paraphrase you,
you have claimed that what is inside a woman is not to different than
a tape worm when it comes to rights, you have compared that the life
within women to germs that cause bad breath; when it comes to the
rights of the unborn lives within women, you have compared the DNA
of human life within a woman to your spit, and so on. So your values
and mine differ, and as far as how you perceive my point of view; I
hold your values about my opinion in less esteem than you do an
unborn life within a woman.
You have accused me be of things that I have never said, and you
twist the things I have said to fit your world views and preconceived
ideas. I assume you accuse me of things you’d do if you had my
values of human life, I honestly don’t see how you would think I was
some how voting for criminal sanctions against pregnant women.
Along with all the other times you have twisted my words and accused
me of things that I have never said. You do not seem to be able to
see what is written and take that at face value, you color everything
you see as it relates to your values I guess.
You cried about how it is irrelevant it is when life begins, even though
for the longest time that was the subject matter of the discussion,
when life begins, how and when it is to be valued. You grumbled that
no one commented on your post on page four which looks at this in
terms of laws and rights, so I guess this was your new tactic to swing
this around to what you want to talk about when no one jumped into
discussing this couched the way you like. You have the nerve to
complain about how my points are not relevant to what it is you want
to talk about, you poor thing. Claiming my statements mean one
thing when I said something else, just so you can make it what you
want to talk about is so sad and pitiful.
If it will make you feel better about your point of view on abortion,
please keep the laws intact the way they read today I don’t care! You
can place value of the life within women as nothing but a cancer too
as far as I’m concern, your arguments simply reveal the real you
expressing what is within you. If you want to talk about laws and how
they affect women, by all means do so, I don’t care. If you want to
talk about how you think a cow can be valued over the unborn, go
ahead. We do I believe agree on one thing you said,
“I have no need to engage in an esoteric discussion about when a
person exists; a debate which is obviously merely based on
subjective judgments.”
Of course your views fall into this too, simply because you only
acknowledge rights and values after birth only means you have a
different standard than those that struggle with it thinking it occurs
inside the woman. Your timing is different, and the variables you use
are different than the word personhood, or some other standard, but
you still are assigning a time and variables to when life is to be
valued, like it or not. You are standing in judgment of when human
life starts to matter, claiming it is before, during, or after birth is
simply a point in time to be referenced nothing more.
Kelly
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you a politician, KYJelly?
You are the only one between you and I that is concern about laws
and the rights of women when it comes to mankind’s laws on
abortion. As I stated before, I do not care about any man made law;
I do care about the value placed on the life within each woman that
is ‘with child’ as pregnancy use to be called, before the definitions and
sayings changed due ...[text shortened]... before, during, or after birth is
simply a point in time to be referenced nothing more.
Kelly
If not, you should be, as you have the uncanny ability to use many, many words to say absolutely nothing.
22 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you did not want to talk about the subject I was addressing, then you shouldn't have replied and quoted my post. My main observation was that in this entire debate the right to self-autonomy of the pregnant woman has been entirely ignored. You continue to ignore it. If all you want to do is tsk-tsk that some women decide to have abortions, then that's fine with me; knock yerself out. I only take an interest when people want to enact into the criminal law their moral preferences as to things that are none of their business. If you don't support criminal laws against abortion, then I suggest you don't respond to my posts because that's the issue I'm concerned with, not your moral beliefs which I don't care about.
You are the only one between you and I that is concern about laws
and the rights of women when it comes to mankind’s laws on
abortion. As I stated before, I do not care about any man made law;
I do care about the value placed on the life within each woman that
is ‘with child’ as pregnancy use to be called, before the definitions and
sayings changed due ...[text shortened]... before, during, or after birth is
simply a point in time to be referenced nothing more.
Kelly
23 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "I came from a family that knew how to have rational discussions .... "
I came from a family that knew how to have rational discussions and support their arguments with facts and logic. That was a great good fortune. You apparently came from a family that was spoon fed certain beliefs and accepted them uncritically. I was also fortunate enough to have available for my study and to read the works of the great men who's polit ...[text shortened]... flawed understanding of your own religion to fall back on. Not very persuasive to say the least.
😕
23 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderOriginally posted by Halitose
You are wrong.
I think that is one of the fundamental differences between the theist and atheist: the basic right to - and sanctity of life.
Marauder: "You are wrong."
Is he marauder ?
The massive abandonment of the "Sanctity of Life" notion represents one of the most important crystallization-points in the present crises in Western Culture.