To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 27617
27616  |  27618
Subject: 
Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:36:45 GMT
Viewed: 
1716 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:

   if that baby (in utero) is considered a person, then the State has the obligation to protect the rights of that person.

The question becomes “why must the rights of the embryo or fetus supersede the rights of the woman?” I’ve never heard a compelling answer to that question.

   Here are 2 extreme examples that I believe negate any position that is completely pro-life or completely pro-choice.

1. If life begins at conception, then an abortion at any time would equal murder. Now, murder is murder, whether someone kills a 5 year old child or a 50 year old grandmother. Is anyone willing to equate those lives to a “baby” that has been growing in a womb for 2 days?

It has been helpful for me, in discussions like this, to add the term “viable” to “life.” “Viable life” most assuredly does not begin at conception. Before the fetus is viable, it can’t be considered to be a functional, independent human being.

“Viability” refers to pure, physiological criteria and shouldn’t be mistaken for “independent.” A healthy newborn is viable but is not independent. Heck, I know some healthy 20-somethings who are viable but not independent.

   2. A woman, who is 6 months pregnant, is on her way to the abortion clinic to get a legal abortion. Before she gets there, she is mugged and assaulted by a Right Wing Ant-abortion Protestor. She ends up in the hospital, her fetus mortally wounded. The Whackjob is charged and convicted of manslaughter. How can it be that he can get convicted of doing something that she would have legally paid to do minutes later? Is this clearly not an “equal protection” issue?

It’s manslaughter because the Whackjob took the decision away from the woman, who could otherwise have changed her mind at the last minute.



Just my thoughts. Hardly ironclad, I know.

Dave!



Message has 2 Replies:
  Population control -- was Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
 
(...) See, I'm kinda with Dave! on this one--if it's a black and white issue--i.e. the second the sperm touches the egg it's LIFE! then there would be no issue. But people haven't been able to come to a consensus for, well, ever yet as to when life (...) (19 years ago, 10-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
 
(...) Well, if you accept the premise that the baby in utero (thanks for the clarification above) is a person, then certainly the State has the obligation to protect that person's rights (namely, to live). So, by comparison, if a mother tires of her (...) (19 years ago, 10-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
 
(...) Well, it definitely affects the baby, and if that baby is considered a person, then the State has the obligation to protect the rights of that person. (...) Yes. Here are 2 extreme examples that I believe negate any position that is completely (...) (19 years ago, 10-Feb-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

109 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR