views on abortion and euthanasia

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
I am absolutely against the notion of the state mandating an abortion. So my answer is no.

Why?

Whose rights would it violate?

(Caution: This is a trick question.)

It's violates the woman's rights. I've been very clear about this in the past RL. Not a trick question.

T
K
O

0 Replies

You've also said you would favor a compromise , similar to Denmark's policy, of limiting abortion to the first 12 weeks.

Why does the woman have a 'right' to abortion at 84 days, but not at 85?

0 Replies

She has the right to choose, the limitation can be justified in two ways.

a) to acknowledge the intrests of the unborn
b) abortion becomes more invasive the further along the woman is in pregnancy.

It's not about the second it strikes midnight between day 84 and 85, it's about having 84 days (or any other assigned amount of time) to be able to make an educated decision.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

It's not about the second it strikes midnight between day 84 and 85, it's about having 84 days (or any other assigned amount of time) to be able to make an educated decision about ending someone elses life.
T
K
O

0 Replies

southernpride wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
It's not about the second it strikes midnight between day 84 and 85, it's about having 84 days (or any other assigned amount of time) to be able to make an educated decision about ending someone elses life.
T
K
O

How would you alance the interests of the woman the unborn and the state?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

She has the right to choose, the limitation can be justified in two ways.

a) to acknowledge the intrests of the unborn
b) abortion becomes more invasive the further along the woman is in pregnancy.

It's not about the second it strikes midnight between day 84 and 85, it's about having 84 days (or any other assigned amount of time) to be able to make an educated decision.

T
K
O

Once the 'assigned amount of time' is up, then it's ALL about the stroke of midnight on that day. It's legal vs illegal at that point.

If the unborn has 'interests' on day 85, what changed at midnight to give him those interests which must be legally considered , when he didn't have them the day before?

0 Replies

You are framing it wrong.

The unborn has interests before that point. The state would simply be saying that the intrests of the woman have been respected by giving the time in the first place.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

You are framing it wrong.

The unborn has interests before that point. The state would simply be saying that the intrests of the woman have been respected by giving the time in the first place.

T
K
O

Why isn't one of the 'interests' of the unborn the fact that he/she has an interest in staying alive?

Wouldn't that be Interest #1 for just about anybody?

If the state is gonna 'balance and consider' the interests of all, it would seem that legalizing the killing of one party would be a signal failure to do so IMHO.

0 Replies

Well your opinion is not to balance, it is to be absolute. I don't think you are fit to judege what is balanced. You seem to think that a unborn's intrest is not reflected in the idea of having a grace period for the woman to make a choice. What is so hard to understand?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Unfortunately for the pro-abort side, the law requires you to define your terms.

Either the unborn is a living human being, or the unborn is NOT a living human being.

Both are absolute positions, just with opposite results.

If your position is that the unborn is NOT a living human being, then on what basis do you assign it 'interests' and limit the right of the mother?

If your position is that the unborn IS a living human being , then on what basis do you take away his/her life?

If your position is that the unborn is NOT ALWAYS a living human being, i.e. the unborn BECOMES a living human being at SOME point between conception and birth, then you must define EXACTLY when that occurs.

Law requires definition, Deist. If you want to moan that that is 'absolutist' , then moan, but that is the way it is.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

She has the right to choose, the limitation can be justified in two ways.

a) to acknowledge the intrests of the unborn
b) abortion becomes more invasive the further along the woman is in pregnancy.

It's not about the second it strikes midnight between day 84 and 85, it's about having 84 days (or any other assigned amount of time) to be able to make an educated decision.

T
K
O

The educated decision should have been prior to conception.

0 Replies

Real life, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. The exact point of division between a human being and human tissue is the existence of a functioning brain with the ability to generate consciousness. Embryos are absolutely not human beings. Fetuses of less than 24 weeks gestation are absolutely not able to generate consciousness because the necessary brain wiring has not yet been completed (they can make reflexive movements, however). No awareness, no interests, no rights. It's that simple.

Brain development, like death, is a process. At some point we can say with certainty that a person is alive. At some point we can say with certainty that they are dead. But there is a stretch of time that may be seconds, minutes, or even years when it they are in a gray area - an intermediate state where the heart is beating (which only requires that the brain stem be functional) but they cannot truly be said to exist as a human "being."

Persons in comas may well recover. It is possible (but unlikely) for persons in minimally conscious states to recover. The odds of recovery from a persistent vegetative state are near zero. There is a risk that doctors may make an incorrect diagnosis in a small percentage of cases and pronounce someone dead who might have recovered. There is also a risk that the state may execute innocent people. A certain number of mistakes may be deemed acceptable in light of the greater good to society.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Why should one person forfeit their life for the convenience of another?

And why should the state approve it?

No "person" forfeits their life in a first or 2nd trimester abortion. So where does the state get the right to require any woman to forfeit her right to pursue happiness if she accidentally becomes pregnant?

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

The educated decision should have been prior to conception.

In a perfect world, birth control would never fail, men would not coerce, drug or seduce teenaged girls, people would not succumb to urges against their better judgment, no one would trade sex for drugs or "love" and no one would ever become pregnant against their will. Abortion is one way to deal with the consequences of imperfection.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
The educated decision should have been prior to conception.

In a perfect world, birth control would never fail, men would not coerce, drug or seduce teenaged girls, people would not succumb to urges against their better judgment, no one would trade sex for drugs or "love" and no one would ever become pregnant against their will. Abortion is one way to deal with the consequences of imperfection.

What is wrong with the 'other' ways since you say that abortion is one way.

I would buy what you say if the reasons you give were the reasons for abortion. Sadly, these are not the cause of most abortions.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Unfortunately for the pro-abort side, the law requires you to define your terms.

1) Pro-choice is not pro-abortion.
2) What undefined terms have I used? We've been discussing a legal architecture similar to that of a country like Denmark. Are they using undefined terms?

real life wrote:

Either the unborn is a living human being, or the unborn is NOT a living human being.

Both are absolute positions, just with opposite results.

Red Herring.

This hase nothing to do with the current discussion.

real life wrote:

If your position is that the unborn is NOT a living human being, then on what basis do you assign it 'interests' and limit the right of the mother?

If your position is that the unborn IS a living human being , then on what basis do you take away his/her life?

If your position is that the unborn is NOT ALWAYS a living human being, i.e. the unborn BECOMES a living human being at SOME point between conception and birth, then you must define EXACTLY when that occurs.

Unrelated to balancing interests. Further, it's not established that the unborn have interests at all, only that their are people who have intrests (such as yourself) to have the pregancy come to term.

Speaking for those without voices? That's YOUR intrest being expressed. Make no mistake.

real life wrote:

Law requires definition, Deist. If you want to moan that that is 'absolutist' , then moan, but that is the way it is.

Like I said, there exists no problem in the definitions. The only problem is finding a middle ground to balance interests.

You don't have a desire to balance things, and that's why you'll never be taken seriously.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
She has the right to choose, the limitation can be justified in two ways.

a) to acknowledge the intrests of the unborn
b) abortion becomes more invasive the further along the woman is in pregnancy.

It's not about the second it strikes midnight between day 84 and 85, it's about having 84 days (or any other assigned amount of time) to be able to make an educated decision.

T
K
O

The educated decision should have been prior to conception.

A traditional observation with ZERO practical value.

T
K
O

0 Replies

views on abortion and euthanasia

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know