Subject:
|
Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:03:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1841 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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.
|
And, naturally, that may be the hardest agreement to reach!
| |
| |
“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!?
|
A fair question.
If a fetus is removed from its mother at 20 weeks and spends another 20 weeks
in an artificial uterus until birth, then that’s just substituting one womb
for another, and it doesn’t change the underlying issue of viability.
WARNING: NOW ENTERING A GRAY AREA
Of course, then we must ask “what about premature-born babies who are kept in
incubators for several weeks?’ Well, I don’t know. Honestly, I can’t say
that the mother has the right to kill a premature-born baby while it’s in the
incubator.
Legalistically, I suppose a distinction might be made between a non-viable
fetus in utero versus a non-viable baby ex utero, when the latter is
maintained through artificial means. The rights of the former could still be
argued to be subordinate to the mother, since it’s physiologically dependent
upon her. But I still don’t have a great answer.
NOW LEAVING GRAY AREA (yeah, right)
|
Phew, I was getting the shakes in there! ;-)
I’m wondering if it’s as simple as simply stating, “life begins at heartbeat”.
Completely arbitrary, but not without a poignant touch, considering that the
heart is a powerful symbol for humanity and throughout most of human history as
the harbinger for being alive. Most babies’ hearts spontaneously begin beating
at around 3 weeks. Three weeks is a lot of time to make a decision as to
whether or not one wants to carry a baby to term. Granted, that is assuming
that one knows one is pregnant from the git-go, but I see that as a logistical
issue and one that can be overcome with ubiquitious pregnancy tests and
education, as well as tools such as day-after pills, etc.
So, what if a woman finds out too late but still wants to abort? Well, what if
that same woman looses her hand in a gardening accident? The answer is “live
with it”. Unlike a severed hand, pregnancy isn’t permanent, and adoption is a
perfectly sound alternative. Inconvenient? Yeah, life is like that sometimes.
But life is our most precious gift, and we should be respecting it more than as
an occasional inconvenience. If more cultures respected life more, then I
think they’d be less apt to end it so readily.
Well, that’s my answer. Both extremes will hate it, but that’s why they are
called extremists, no? I am donning my suit for all flamers-- BRING...IT...ON!
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Well, consider another (admittedly flawed) example. For the sake of the
hypothetical, imagine that suicide is legally protected like abortion:
If a person decides to commit suicide, and on the way to the Noose Store is
killed by a mugger, the mugger is still guilty of murder, even though the
victim had already resolved to buy and use the noose.
|
Did you see a “Noose Store” at the mall! I swear, those mall stores are getting
more and more specialized every day!
I believe the biggest flaw in your analogy is your first assumption. Since
suicide is self-murder, I cannot see how it can be legalized, if for only
logistical reasons. Plus, now you’ve opened the door for euthanasia which is
another can of worms. I am still just getting comfortable with living
wills!
But the biggest problem with your analogy is attempting to measure or ascertain
intent (state of mind). That can o’ worms leads directly to the policing of
thoughts and mind control. Freedom must surely begin with our thoughts and from
there flow to actions. We can only be judged by our actions and not by our
thoughts or ideas or beliefs.
And I’ll tie that into belief in God. In the end, I believe that we won’t be
judged by what we believed, but what we actually did based on those beliefs.
The whole idea behind belief in God is providing rationalization for acting
morally. Loving God IS loving your neighbor. “Whatsoever you do to the least
of my children, that you do unto me.” (from memory; too lazy to cite).
Sorry. </tangent>
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
