|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 20, 2009 18:57:30 GMT
and the FACT is that there is NO circumstance, under any conditions, in which abortion can ever be considered a legitimate method of birth control That's not a fact; it's a moral position. As I've said, the Russians approach it from a different starting point in that they do (or did) consider abortion an uncontroversial form of birth control. Whether it stems from them not having any regard for human life, or from them considering a foetus to not be human life I cannot say. that's not the point. how the russians chose, or choose, to approach it doesn't change the reality. it doesn't really matter whether abortion is wrong or not. you have NO right using abortion as birth control, period. you have a multitude of ways to prevent contraception, not the least of which is saying "no"
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 21, 2009 18:04:33 GMT
That's not a fact; it's a moral position. As I've said, the Russians approach it from a different starting point in that they do (or did) consider abortion an uncontroversial form of birth control. Whether it stems from them not having any regard for human life, or from them considering a foetus to not be human life I cannot say. that's not the point. how the russians chose, or choose, to approach it doesn't change the reality. it doesn't really matter whether abortion is wrong or not. you have NO right using abortion as birth control, period. you have a multitude of ways to prevent contraception, not the least of which is saying "no" Iamjumbo, you don't get to say what rights I do and don't have. Rights are legal property, and are set by the Government and legal system under which I live. Currently, you're right, I have no 'right' to an abortion. But should the UK Government change the law, I would have. In Russia - it seems - they had the right to an abortion, and they used it.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 21, 2009 19:36:37 GMT
There are lots of things which are 'sins' that are not crimes in the West.
There are also lots of things which are 'crimes' that should not be.
On the whole, I'm a libertarian who wants to see the State doing as little as possible.
On the other hand, sometimes a sin is also a crime.
Murder is a classic example; so's rape; so (IMHO) is abortion unless: a) the mother's life is in danger; b) the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.
I hate the fact that abortion has now become the method of choice for too many youngsters who are irresponsible about how they behave.
To get pregnant by accident once is one thing; to be a multiple aborter is sheer callousness.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 22, 2009 14:36:56 GMT
that's not the point. how the russians chose, or choose, to approach it doesn't change the reality. it doesn't really matter whether abortion is wrong or not. you have NO right using abortion as birth control, period. you have a multitude of ways to prevent contraception, not the least of which is saying "no" Iamjumbo, you don't get to say what rights I do and don't have. Rights are legal property, and are set by the Government and legal system under which I live. Currently, you're right, I have no 'right' to an abortion. But should the UK Government change the law, I would have. In Russia - it seems - they had the right to an abortion, and they used it. of course i can say what rights you have. there are some rights that you have simply by virtue of being born. the fact that those rights aren't recognized by some government does NOT change the fact that you have them. at any rate, i actually do not know whether or not abortion is wrong. i do know that it is prima facie wrong if used for birth control, but, otherwise, i truly don't know. i DO know however, that if it is wrong, you'll have to explain it to god, not to me.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 22, 2009 14:45:31 GMT
Iamjumbo, you don't get to say what rights I do and don't have. Rights are legal property, and are set by the Government and legal system under which I live. Currently, you're right, I have no 'right' to an abortion. But should the UK Government change the law, I would have. In Russia - it seems - they had the right to an abortion, and they used it. of course i can say what rights you have. there are some rights that you have simply by virtue of being born. the fact that those rights aren't recognized by some government does NOT change the fact that you have them. at any rate, i actually do not know whether or not abortion is wrong. i do know that it is prima facie wrong if used for birth control, but, otherwise, i truly don't know. i DO know however, that if it is wrong, you'll have to explain it to god, not to me. As you are neither my God nor my Government, you have no legitimate power to tell me what my rights are. The English language is a precision tool; words mean what they mean, not what you would like them to mean.
|
|
|
Post by chefmate51 on Jan 22, 2009 15:04:40 GMT
But after one becomes pregnant, why are those rights of the unborn disregarded in favor of the mother?
They are little human beings also but denied their humanity because if we truly recognized the fact they are human, women couldn't abort and that would leave them with responsibility they never displayed in the first place.
I believe abortion is a byproduct of irresponsibility; not wanting to have to raise the consequence of your actions for the next eighteen years or so or being able to hand the child over to adoptive parents
I guess it's what Jumbo said.......don't be spreading your legs if you will not take the responsibility of the pregnancy that can occur from this action.
But I also believe we who want to deny abortion then need to put in place homes where these gals can go to have their babies and help them to get educated and decent jobs to provide for their responsibility and it wouldn't hurt if family stepped up to the plate and pitched in also.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 22, 2009 16:18:46 GMT
Chefmate, yet again you're a voice for compassion and humanity. Take an exalt!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2009 20:24:47 GMT
So when do an egg and a sperm become a human being? When they fuse... when they become implatend in the womb, or what? There are plenty of contraceptives that prevent a fertilised egg from becoming implanted - does that egg have rights? If so, why stop at abortion?
|
|
|
Post by mindy on Jan 22, 2009 21:27:23 GMT
of course i can say what rights you have. there are some rights that you have simply by virtue of being born. the fact that those rights aren't recognized by some government does NOT change the fact that you have them. at any rate, i actually do not know whether or not abortion is wrong. i do know that it is prima facie wrong if used for birth control, but, otherwise, i truly don't know. i DO know however, that if it is wrong, you'll have to explain it to god, not to me. As you are neither my God nor my Government, you have no legitimate power to tell me what my rights are. The English language is a precision tool; words mean what they mean, not what you would like them to mean. I don't think he was trying to be your God or your Government, he's saying that someone who chose to have an abortion would have to explain it to God in the end not to him, if it is wrong. And I agree with that! Personally I think it's wrong to have an abortion whether your a careless teen or someone using it as a form of birth control. That human fetus is somebody's soul, the beginning of their life. Birth Control Pills are very effective if one does not want to get pregnant, and if one does accidentally get pregnant, adoption is the courageous and human thing to do verses murdering the live fetus.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 23, 2009 12:53:27 GMT
So when do an egg and a sperm become a human being? When they fuse... when they become implatend in the womb, or what? There are plenty of contraceptives that prevent a fertilised egg from becoming implanted - does that egg have rights? If so, why stop at abortion? And why does the woman have the right to use such contraception? Why are her rights not to carry the fertilised zygote more important than the zygote's right to develop or right not to be terminated?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 23, 2009 13:49:23 GMT
For the same reason that the rights of another human being NOT to be murdered outweigh the 'rights' of another human being to commit murder.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 23, 2009 17:28:08 GMT
As you are neither my God nor my Government, you have no legitimate power to tell me what my rights are. The English language is a precision tool; words mean what they mean, not what you would like them to mean. I don't think he was trying to be your God or your Government, he's saying that someone who chose to have an abortion would have to explain it to God in the end not to him, if it is wrong. And I agree with that! Personally I think it's wrong to have an abortion whether your a careless teen or someone using it as a form of birth control. That human fetus is somebody's soul, the beginning of their life. Birth Control Pills are very effective if one does not want to get pregnant, and if one does accidentally get pregnant, adoption is the courageous and human thing to do verses murdering the live fetus. I think we had side-tracked from the abortion debate, and Jumbo was telling me what I did and didn't have a right to do. And, as I explained, he is wrong on that score. You seem to have missed my point. "Rights" is not some loose term to throw around in support of an argument. "Rights" is a specific legal and moral concept. We can discuss all day whether people SHOULD have abortions, but to talk of 'rights' in this context, particularly with regard to different jurisdictions, is to abuse the precision tool that is the English language.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 23, 2009 17:29:11 GMT
For the same reason that the rights of another human being NOT to be murdered outweigh the 'rights' of another human being to commit murder. Again, you're abusing the language. There is no such thing as a 'right' to commit murder; Indeed, it's a crime.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2009 18:05:59 GMT
For the same reason that the rights of another human being NOT to be murdered outweigh the 'rights' of another human being to commit murder. Lin, are you saying that a fertilised egg is a human being? If so, why the focus on abortion, rather than the (probably more common) methods that prevent that egg becoming embedded in the womb?
|
|
|
Post by chefmate51 on Jan 23, 2009 18:40:23 GMT
If a fertilized egg is not human, then what on earth is it?
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 23, 2009 19:04:53 GMT
If a fertilized egg is not human, then what on earth is it? There are more categories of living things on this earth than just 'human' and 'not human'.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 23, 2009 19:05:36 GMT
For the same reason that the rights of another human being NOT to be murdered outweigh the 'rights' of another human being to commit murder. A zygote is cells. An embryo is a potential human being. Murder is unlawful killing. So. Come again??!
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 23, 2009 19:12:16 GMT
If a fertilized egg is not human, then what on earth is it? A fertilised egg is not A human.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2009 19:12:48 GMT
chefmate. If you believe that a fertilised egg is a human being, why not campaign against those forms of contraception that effectively destroy it? Coils, and some of the contraceptive pills for example.
If you already do, that is fine. But I seldom see such debates, just endless arguments about abortion.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 23, 2009 19:17:32 GMT
For the same reason that the rights of another human being NOT to be murdered outweigh the 'rights' of another human being to commit murder. And following on from my last two posts, why should the rights of a fertilised egg outweigh the rights of a woman to refuse to carry it. And with the title in mind, what is feminist about that thinking?
|
|