ABORTION.......

flushd wrote:

The grey area of "Is a fertilized egg a human being with equal rights to the rest of us (or a fetus)" is where all the pain is caused, I think.

You can't squash rights if something/someone doesn't have any, or has a different set of rights than the rest of us, right?

The stance of Pro-Life, seems to me, to be that a fertilized egg or fetus should have equal rights to a born child. Actually, more rights than a born child! A born child is not given priority up and beyond a mother's rights, only an equal right to life.

That doesn't make sense to me, since a fertilized egg or fetus is NOT a fully functioning human being. Even to say that it is 'alive' or 'a growing person' does not make it fully functioning or equal/the same as a born child or adult. It is simply a different situation.

echi, does it really matter if we classify mother/fetus as seperate bodies or not? Would it change the fact that a fertilized egg requires the consent of the mother in order for it to grow into a fully-functioning, independent body in the social world?

So then if since a fetus is not a "fully functioning human being" shall we then go out and slaughter all the senile people? Or the one's who have alzheimer's disease. What about the one's who are retarted? Or blind? What is it that defines "fully functioning" anyway?

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
Flushed or anyone who is pro choice......

Should all choices receive equal protection and treatment under the law then to insure those choices....those RIGHTS are not infringed upon?

Do you believe in a woman's right to choose all of those choices equally and without bias?

Sorry Bartikus, I was getting to that.

Of course not. All rights should receive equal protection, but not all choices.

I can smell bait...sniff...sniff...lol.

There is a difference between protecting rights of an individual and protecting "do whatever you want no matter who it hurts" behavior.

I was speaking strictly in terms of the right of a woman to choose any of the choices you mentioned.

I assume all those choices in particular should have equal protection. Is that your stand as a pro choice advocate?

Here are the choices you refered to earlier:

Clearly, I feel that a woman's right to choose is the number one priority. What that choice will be....to conceive, abort, bear a child, give a child up for adoption, be childless and never conceive....is totally up to her.

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

So then if since a fetus is not a "fully functioning human being" shall we then go out and slaughter all the senile people? Or the one's who have alzheimer's disease. What about the one's who are retarted? Or blind? What is it that defines "fully functioning" anyway?

I don't advocate slaughtering senile people, people with alzheimer's disease, 'retarded' people, nor those who are blind.

In fact, I advocate FOR those folks who are being abused, neglected, and denied their rights as human beings.

It is incorrect to compare a fetus to a person with A.D., and incorrect to compare someone with A.D. to someone who is blind. Each is an individual first: with unique circumstances, abilities, challenges. And each of those people you listed are born human beings.

Let's stick to the real discussion.

I apologize for using the confusing term "fully functioning". It is probably not the best choice of words on my part.
My point was that a fertilized egg, or fetus, is not the same as a born child. This should be obvious. Hence, it deserves special consideration.

I am not glued to any particular stance on this issue, but I have found nothing to convince me that abortion should be abolished, or denied to those women who choose it.

Bartikus,

Yes. I believe a woman has a right to decide what happens regarding her own body, amongst those choices I have listed and (possibly) others.

0 Replies

Sorry flushd, I wasn't actually trying to compare those things with a fetus. I was just making a point based on your choice of words... It's all good. I have a question though:

Quote:

My point was that a fertilized egg, or fetus, is not the same as a born child. This should be obvious. Hence, it deserves special consideration.

You are correct in saying this, however the question for me still remains... is it alive?

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

echi, does it really matter if we classify mother/fetus as seperate bodies or not? Would it change the fact that a fertilized egg requires the consent of the mother in order for it to grow into a fully-functioning, independent body in the social world?

Of course not. Either way, the mother must consent. But it would present her with a much different set of options to consider. It would do away with the idea that the woman's own body is the only one requiring any consideration.

0 Replies

Wow! I have been away from my computer for a number of pages on this thread. You guys are going around in so many circles that my head is spinning.

I think that it all comes down to a few concepts, with which I will put my :

Is the embryo/fetus alive- Yes, definitely.

Is the embryo/fetus a human life? No, it is simply a potential, as an acorn is to an oak tree.

Whose rights are paramount--------------the pregnant woman, or the embryo/fetus.- The mother. She is a fully functioning human being, while the embryo/fetus is not.

At one point in gestation, I am somewhat unclear as to the appropriate course that society should properly take. I have always believed, (as have many of the courts) that at the point where the fetus would be viable, that the status of this being has changed, and that an abortion would not be appropriate.

In other words, the woman is entitled to the right to choose to abort where the embryo/fetus is unable to live on its own. I will not even get into the issue of the helplessness of a newborn. That is a totally different issue. I am talking about a being who has the ability to live without the mother's womb.

On the other hand, late term abortions, including partial birth abortions, IMO, are reasonable in extraordinary circumstances, such as saving the life of the mother.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

WHAT???!!!! Frank, wait a minute here. You have continually said it is not murder only because abortion is not against the law. Surely you cannot deny that killing another human being is murder?

NO IT IS NOT! It is only murder if it is against the law.

Quote:

Oh yeah, stop with the hypotheticals? Very funny, Frank. Fact is you just got caught with your foot in your mouth and you know it.

You simply are not intellectually up to this kind of discussion, MA. Doesn't make you a bad person.

Quote:

You admitted if it was proven to be a human being it wouldn't matter. The woman should still be able to abort. So, now it's not murder only because it's legal? Good friggin grief Frank! I don't care if you call it pussyfooting around! If you know it's a human being and you kill it, it's murder, and premeditated murder at that! If thinking it's legal to do it makes it okay to kill, think away. But, don't expect me to buy into it![/color]

Try to use what intelligence you have, MA. It is only murder if it is against the law.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

A quick comment on the pro-choice mantra, "A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY"...
I agree with this statement. I think what the pro-choice people are missing is that, although a woman has the right to control her own body, she should not have the right to harm someone else's. I have the right to control my own body, but I do not have the right to control it in such a way that I cause someone else's rights to be squashed.
And, the fact that the unborn person's body is dependent on the mother's body for it's survival does not mean that both are the same body. Do any of you believe that it does? I am interested to know your reasons.

A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY.

The fact that a pregnant woman has a zygote, embryo, or fetus growing in her does not lose her that right.

It is a unique situation...and an unfortunate one...BUT A WOMAN HAS A RIGHT TO SAY THAT SHE WANTS TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY if she chooses to do so...

...and the government should not be allowed to tell her that she cannot.

Neither can any of you holy rollers.

0 Replies

One of the problems here is that the anti-choice side seems to think it can call people murders and advocates of murder...and consider that to be okay...but when the pro-choice side reacts with choice accusations of their own...they are deemed to be name-callers and low-lifes.

Well...the true low-lifes in this issue are those people who advocate that the government has a right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. They are the people trying (wittingly or unwittingly) to set women's rights back 2000 years!

This is a disgusting state of affairs...and all those of us who see the hypocrisy and/or ignorance of the anti-choice side for what it is have to hope that the majority of American citizens continue to recognize that hypocrisy with us...and that we never accede to these forces of superstition and subjugation.[/size]

0 Replies

A radical fanatical
is what she be
Why she doesn't understand
is beyond me

She dances, she prances
and beats her breast
while everyone else on A2K
could care less

PRO Choice means QUALITY OF LIFE is
the ultimate goal

Her ranting and ravings
fall on deaf ears
of those
she considers her peers

Now pray tell
can someone say
which came first
the chicken or the egg.

0 Replies

Frank,

Thre is really no need to yell. Hey, I am sure you and others don't like it that I call abortion murder. But, if you are so sure it's not then what's the big deal? Sticks and stones and all that, eh?

Actually Frank, I've never had the thought that because a woman has had an abortion she is therefore a murderer. I have never had the thought that if a doctor performs an abortion he is therefore a murderer. Might not seem possible to you, but that's the way it is for me. Yes, it is legal so by definition it is not murder. However, for ME it would be murder. So don't get your panties all in a bunch because I call abortion murder. I am not calling you or anyone else a murderer. Just as you have told me and others you aren't calling us stupid or anything because you say our views are stupid.

You get all ticked off because others aren't agreeing with you and others and so friggin what, Frank? People will always disagree. That's just life, ya know? We are only having a conversation. We are not changing any laws or anything. IT'S JUST A DISCUSSION! IF I ever go out there and start protesting or bombing abortion clinics or shooting abortion doctors, then I think getting upset would definitely be in order. But, don't hold your breath, Frank. That's not what I believe is the right thing to do.

Oh and seaglass.......... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

One of the problems here is that the anti-choice side seems to think it can call people murders and advocates of murder...and consider that to be okay...but when the pro-choice side reacts with choice accusations of their own...they are deemed to be name-callers and low-lifes.[/size]

I am not interested in condemning anyone. I understand that "murder" is a legal term, and so it follows that abortion would not qualify.

Why do you believe the pro-life position is more superstitious than the pro-choice one? The pro-life stance that a person exists at conception seems to me the most scientific and least arbitrary.

0 Replies

echi,

I think that is an excellent point.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

The pro-life stance that a person exists at conception seems to me the most scientific and least arbitrary.

Then why don't you all take this discussion over to the science forum? It's really more appropriate if you feel you've got a scientific point, not a philosophical one.

No?

Didn't think so.

0 Replies

ehBeth--

Maybe you're right. I did a quick search in the science forum and couldn't find an abortion thread. I guess I could start one, but this one is already so well established. I know there is an abortion thread going in Politics, but I feel like my arguments are better suited for this forum. Anyway, don't you think three active abortion threads would be wearing it a little thin?

0 Replies

echi,

Maybe it would help if you explained how science supports your position.

0 Replies

Thanks, wandel...
I gotta go right now, but I'll definitely think about that.

0 Replies

MA wrote:

Quote:

Thre is really no need to yell.

Actually, there is. You people are deaf.

Quote:

Hey, I am sure you and others don't like it that I call abortion murder. But, if you are so sure it's not then what's the big deal? Sticks and stones and all that, eh?

Actually Frank, I've never had the thought that because a woman has had an abortion she is therefore a murderer. I have never had the thought that if a doctor performs an abortion he is therefore a murderer. Might not seem possible to you, but that's the way it is for me. Yes, it is legal so by definition it is not murder. However, for ME it would be murder. So don't get your panties all in a bunch because I call abortion murder. I am not calling you or anyone else a murderer. Just as you have told me and others you aren't calling us stupid or anything because you say our views are stupid.

Stop playing with words, MA...it is not your strong suit.

You call abortion "murder"...but then want to weasel out the implications of that by pretending that although you consider it murder...you don't consider an abortionist a murder...or that a woman undergoing the procedure having murdered a "child!"

Wake up!

Quote:

You get all ticked off because others aren't agreeing with you and others and so friggin what, Frank?

I'm not "ticked off"...I'm laughing at the hypocrisy of damn near every element of the anti-choice position.

Quote:

People will always disagree. That's just life, ya know? We are only having a conversation. We are not changing any laws or anything. IT'S JUST A DISCUSSION! IF I ever go out there and start protesting or bombing abortion clinics or shooting abortion doctors, then I think getting upset would definitely be in order. But, don't hold your breath, Frank. That's not what I believe is the right thing to do.

YOU ARE ADVOCATING THAT THE GOVERNMENT DECIDE WHAT A WOMAN CAN AND CANNOT DO WITH HER OWN BODY.

Wake the hell up and take a look at what you actually are doing.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
One of the problems here is that the anti-choice side seems to think it can call people murders and advocates of murder...and consider that to be okay...but when the pro-choice side reacts with choice accusations of their own...they are deemed to be name-callers and low-lifes.[/size]

I am not interested in condemning anyone. I understand that "murder" is a legal term, and so it follows that abortion would not qualify.

Good. Because while it may be a whole bunch of things...many not particularly pleasant...IT IS NOT MURDER.

Quote:

Why do you believe the pro-life position is more superstitious than the pro-choice one?

Because damn near all of the anti-choice position is ultimately based on the fear and superstition the anti-choice people call religion.

Quote:

The pro-life stance that a person exists at conception seems to me the most scientific and least arbitrary.

The notion that 8 cells constititues a person is so absurd and arbitrary it almost unfathomable that supposedly intelligent people would accept it...let along argue the point.

0 Replies

I have always maintained the conviction that every zygote should be allowed a short period of time to voice its own opinion, say 18 years, a relatively short time, don't you think?

Then the pro choice position would be universally pro choice.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know