Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 20:33:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
733 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> Maggie,
> I don't want to be harsh or insulting, but this basically sounds like
> what I have been hearing for years from the pro-choice people, and it hasn't
> put a dent in my way of thinking in all those years. I can empathize with
> you not wanting strangers in Washington butting in to your affairs.
> Everyone can empathize with that, I would think, because strangers in
> Washington do butt into many of our affaris far too often. Still your
> argument sounds emotional. Nothing wrong with emotions as long as there is
> some rationality to accompany them.
Of course, it was emotional. This is an emotionally charged subject. You'll
have to pardon me, this was my first time posting to debate and I did not
know that one of the rules was that you must leave your emotions at the door.
>
> So, you say we should agree to disagree. That's fine, I disagree with
> people all the time. The best chance of my mind changing is if the people I
> disagree with explain to me why they think the way they do (not the way they
> feel - because that is usually inexplicable).
Actually John, I'm not out to change anyone's mind about their stance on
abortion. Of course, I would like to change the minds of those who think that
the affairs of others is their business.
>
> In my mind the inalienable rights we have granted to human beings should
> apply to ALL human beings, including the very, very young (unborn). I think
> these rights should take precedence over someone else's wishes not to be
> "hassled by the man." Please tell me a) why your desire not to be troubled
> by the powers that be is more important than the right to life of another
> human being or b) what evidence you have that a fetus younger than an
> arbitrary number (16 weeks?) is not a human being.
Certainly, the inalienable rights granted to human beings should apply to ALL
human beings. And if you read my last post carefully, you would see that I
never said that prior to an arbitrary age of development a fetus is NOT a human
being. In fact a fetus is human from conception, IMO. But not a viable human
for a while. And that makes a difference when you have two beings whose rights
are at odds with each other and you must choose whose rights take precedence.
You stated in a prior post, "I do not consider conception to be a physical
attack."
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=7160
I DO consider conception to be a physical attack on a woman's body. The
question is whether it is a tolerable violation to the host (which means SHE is
the one who decides whether or not the situation is tolerable). If not, she
should have the right to expell the intruder. If she does it early enough,
when the fetus is not viable, it is an abortion. If, however, the fetus would
be viable, then she has the responsibility of making sure it is not harmed (so
I would certainly be against aborting and killing a baby that could survive
outside the womb on its own).
Then you said, "Occasionally the birth process can result in damage to either
party involved, and I do believe defense of one's body is acceptable. That is
the case when abortion is acceptable...."
If that is the case, then abortion must be acceptable. Since you cannot define
precisely what you mean by damage, if I were to follow your line of reasoning,
I could argue that stretch marks are evidence of damage done to a woman's body
because of pregnancy, and thus would be legitimate grounds for having an
abortion. Then further, I could argue that the mere possibility of stretch
marks is enough to make abortion acceptable. Because the word "damage" is a
subjective term, as long as we use it as a criterion for considering whether an
abortion is appropriate we will have a problem.
So to maintain sovereignty over her own body (and there is nothing flippant
about my use of the word here), a woman must have the right to have an
abortion if she chooses. Period. She should not have to explain to anyone
what she considers an intolerable or damaging situation. As long the baby
could not survive on its own outside the womb, the woman's rights should take
precedence.
>
> I'd like you to prove it to me, or at least show me whatever evidence
> works for you. I'd like to agree with you. I'd like to share the majority
> opinion for once.
What I have just stated, however inelegantly, is all the evidence I need. I
have yet to meet a person who was not pro-choice who wanted to be. So I'm not
holding my breath (don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning your sincerity!).
>
> > But I do want it to be MY decision,
>
> Who else's decision could it be?
I will say it again, in this election the issue of overriding importance to
me was the next president's influence on the composition of the Supreme
Court. And that, of course, was how I made the mistake of stumbling into this
thread in the first place....
Maggie
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) Maggie: I apologize for jumping on your case. Being in the minority of opinion politically and err...just about everything else...I sometimes like to throw a philosophical wrench into the works when I feel like the forum is about to play (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| Maggie, I don't want to be harsh or insulting, but this basically sounds like what I have been hearing for years from the pro-choice people, and it hasn't put a dent in my way of thinking in all those years. I can empathize with you not wanting (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
279 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
|
|
|
|
