Subject:
|
Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:12:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1761 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 “terrible two” year old daughter, she certainly has no right to
simply end that child’s life for her mental convenience. So, the woman’s
“right” to convenience is naturally superceded by her child’s right to live.
The issue boiled down is the status of the
fetus/embryo/child/tissue/baby/growth. I find it telling which terms are used,
for they betray the positions of each side. That is where the basis of
agreement needs to begin.
| |
| |
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.
|
:-)
If a baby has been delivered at 20 weeks and has survived (albeit through
extraordinary measures), would you consider that a criteria for viability
Dave!?
| |
| |
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.
|
But there’s no law prohibiting “taking someone’s decision away” on the books
AFAIK. The crime is the result. I am very uncomfortable with this completely
arbitrary characterization of life, especially in the late second and third
semesters.
| |
Just my thoughts. Hardly ironclad, I know.
|
And appreciated.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
