Subject:
|
Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:22:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1247 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
But our government supports a system of protecting the rights of its
citizens-- the real debate isn’t whose choice it is, but rather whether or
not the fetus has rights which need protecting by the government.
|
Um-- I wouldn’t call them citizens, but yes, to protect the rights of people
in general.
| |
Obviously, 1 second after birth and even before the chord is cut, the mother
cannot suddenly decide to abort. That would be murder. The only real
difference between that newborn baby and himself 3 weeks prior is physical
location in relation to the mother. So rights are somehow tied to
locality???
|
Are abortions legal 3 weeks prior to the due date?
|
Prior to any late-term abortion legislation restricting it (not doubt opposed by
NARAL), yes, in theory.
| |
I didn’t think that was
allowed? You’re right insofar as the line needs to be drawn. Otherwise, one
could argue that every time you have protected sex, you’re killing a baby.
|
Yes. I’m not in the “every sperm is sacred” camp;-)
| |
The question is where you want to draw the line. Most pro-choice advocates
aren’t asking for abortions 21 days before due.
|
But they want the right to do it if they choose.
| |
| |
It’s all about rights, and when/if the fetus has any. If the fetus hasn’t
any rights, then the government has no stake in the matter. If the fetus
does, then the government is obligated to protect them. “The right to
choose” is a fiction-- there is no such “right”.
|
The right to choose is most certainly a right.
|
The right to choose what? Do I have a right to choose to murder you? You
could argue “yes”, but I don’t see any value in that proposition, because I have
no right to actually deprive you of your right to life.
| |
I’m quite sure you don’t want
to argue that. What I think you want to argue is that one’s right to choose
in NO way overrules the fetus’ right to live, despite the fact that both
rights exist. One simply carries more weight. If sex produced office
furniture in 9 months, I’m sure you’d argue that women would have the right
to decide to abort their furniture when it was still kindling.
|
There’s a mental image for ya...yeeouch:-0
But in your office furniture example, you conveniently omit the “life” issue,
and so the “choice” issue crystallizes nicely. This, in a nutshell, is the rub
of the abortion debate.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
| (...) Oh? I didn't think that was what was desired. I could believe that there are some out there who would be in favor of it, but I think in general, they're talking abortions within the first few months of pregnancy. Correct me if I'm wrong, of (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Screw Abstinence?
|
| (...) Um-- I wouldn't call them citizens, but yes, to protect the rights of people in general. (...) Are abortions legal 3 weeks prior to the due date? I didn't think that was allowed? You're right insofar as the line needs to be drawn. Otherwise, (...) (19 years ago, 6-Oct-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
