Subject:
|
Re: Population control -- was Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:05:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1624 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > 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.
> > >
> > > > 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!
> >
> > 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 does begin. All of them state that when the baby is out and
> > breathing, then that's life--no questions.
>
> No questions? Some have decided that
> <http://washingtontimes.com/world/20041130-100130-5165r.htm post birth
> abortions> are fine. Again, I am not comfortable with someone deciding to
> abort a baby that is literally seconds from birth, much less X minutes
> [after]! It's almost beyond belief.
It is almost beyond belief. But then, on the oppsite end, there's the 'morning
after' pill that is causing a furor because the republicans want to make it a
perscription drug (or have already done so--can't remember)--they're meddling in
the personal choices of individuals when there might not even be an inseminated
egg. I find that to be equally beyond belief.
> So it appears that even your "out and breathing" parameter is in dispute!
>
> > But between conception to birthing, there has been no consensus as to 'this
> > is life' and 'that isn't' point.
> >
> > Third trimesters, 20 weeks, conception... whatever...
> >
> > So again, when there's no consensus, I'm left to make the decision *for me*
> > and me alone. For me, any potential child of mine begins when I'm in a
> > loving committed relationship with someone and we want to have a kid.
> >
> > There. That's for me. Others may take the same approach, and that's their
> > choice. However, I won't push that choice on people, nor should I.
> >
> > And quoting specific legal cases--well, there'll be cases that won stating
> > the exact opposite. Until all of us can unequivocably state that "This
> > point is when life begins", then we're left with our own 'belief'. If it's
> > a 'belief', it's something we can't pawn off on others.
>
> Okay, but certainly you wouldn't argue that way for other activities such as
> stealing or murder. I'm not equating abortion with those (unless we are
> talking about post term abortions), merely pointing out that leaving
> decisions up to individuals isn't necessarily a Good Idea™.
It isn't necessarily a Good Idea, but it is the right thing to do in situations
where 'Society' can't come up with a consensus--if there's no law, then its up
to the individual. We, as individuals, are allowed to make stupid decisions
that aren't 'Good Ideas'--that's part of being human.
>
> > Should society protect someone who is helpless and can't protect themselves?
> > Yes. But if we can't agree when that life starts, then it's left in the
> > realm of 'belief'--that's a personal choice and therefore society should
> > butt out.
> >
> > At least, that's how I see it.
>
> I believe we can't decide because everyone is too concerned with their
> particular {agendas}, not with solving the issue at hand. And not deciding
> is actually in fact deciding.
I'm a pretty open-minded Christian, and I can't state emphatically when life
begins. So I just say when it begins for me, and I'll leave other people to
make their own decision.
> > All this said, if I have a daughter and she comes home pregnant at 15 (as
> > some kids are prone to do these days), I'll sit down with her and we'll talk
> > openly about all the options, with my personal belief that she should carry
> > the baby to term, and either keep it (and me and her mom helping as much as
> > possible) or give it up for adoption (again, with me and mom there all the
> > way).
> >
> > But whatever her choice, it's hers to make and I'll support her.
>
> Of course. That is what it is all about. And early enough, I would agree
> that ALL options are on the table. But after a certain point, they should
> decrease IMO. Killing a person for convenience shouldn't be tolerated, in
> utero or out.
>
> [JOHN]
Again, killing a person for any reason shouldn't be tolerated, but that brings
us back to the beginning--when does 'the person' begin?
Dave K
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
