|
Post by riotgrrl on Sept 10, 2009 10:29:41 GMT
I believe that the right to life is the most sacred of all which is why I support the death penalty for murder . That sentence made me laugh btw. A right to life and the death penalty cannot co-exist.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Sept 10, 2009 11:52:26 GMT
I believe that the right to life is the most sacred of all which is why I support the death penalty for murder . That sentence made me laugh btw. A right to life and the death penalty cannot co-exist. I think I know what she's saying here: if a person murders, he/she takes a life as MUCH as abortion takes a life. So, the person that murders deserves the death penalty. I agree with her on this in SOME murder cases. There's another difference between someone who murders and a fetus who's aborted: the fetus did NOTHING wrong. The murderer took a life. That's a big, important difference.
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Sept 10, 2009 13:10:27 GMT
There is no such thing as "murdering" a fetus.
Suppose a 10 year old girl is raped, becomes pregnant, doesn't want the child and has an abortion...is a 10 year old rape victim a "murderer"? And who among you would have the sheer calousness to say it to her face?
AH
|
|
|
Post by jean on Sept 10, 2009 13:35:30 GMT
The existence of a death penalty simply means that the 'right to life' is not absolute.
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Sept 10, 2009 15:24:41 GMT
what about the father's rights if he wants to raise the child?
his child is murdered and he has no say in the matter.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Sept 10, 2009 16:04:47 GMT
what about the father's rights if he wants to raise the child? his child is murdered and he has no say in the matter. Again with the misuse of legalistic language to make an emotive point. A foetus removed in an abortion is not 'murdered'. Only a fully human person can be murdered. If abortion was treated as murder then a number of really absurd side effects would occur, such as fatal accident investigations into miscarriages in case the mother was somehow responsible, etc. etc. You have a very good point, which is about the rights of a man who fathers a baby, and what they should be. Currently they have none until the child is born, and that situation could usefully be examined.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Sept 10, 2009 17:29:13 GMT
I hate to admit it but since men don't carry the pregnancy, I don't see any Father's rights. As far as I am concerned, the women's duty is to the child and that of the man she chooses to her primarily, should he accept her offer. That need not be the 'biological instigator' - to quote Margaret Mead "Human fatherhood is a sociological invention". I don't really see that rights comes into it. It would be very nice to be absolute equals but in this case there is no equality between the one to carry the pregnancy and the one not to. We are not sea-horses or sticklebacks or some birds where the male takes equal responsibility for incubation as the female, so could claim equal say in what happens to them. 'Mother' is biological, 'Father' sociological. She makes a choice over her own body, for him to do so would be a choice over her body. We would be back to the Classical world where the Paterfamilias decrees whether his wife shall have an abortion or throw the child away after birth. Though I'm not sure that I do agree with a 'human right to life', or if so, then I am not sure that mere human parentage a human child makes.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Sept 10, 2009 22:10:38 GMT
There is no such thing as "murdering" a fetus. Suppose a 10 year old girl is raped, becomes pregnant, doesn't want the child and has an abortion...is a 10 year old rape victim a "murderer"? And who among you would have the sheer calousness to say it to her face? AH Alpha, I've always said I support abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger or if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. I just don't see why women should be allowed to have 7 or so abortions instead of either closing their legs or using birth control. I call THAT being callous.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Sept 10, 2009 22:47:49 GMT
In the case of incest, I hope you mean by choice when the incest amounts to rape, not compusorily between siblings. Some people count first cousins or in-laws as incestuous, some do not as well.
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Sept 11, 2009 15:41:00 GMT
I do understand why women feel the need to control their bodies but they had that choice up until they became pregnant; now they owe the unborn child a chance at life, the very life the mother is enjoying.
I guess I am old fashioned and haven't succumbed to the thought the fetus is anything other than human.....maybe it can't survive outside the mother's body but it is human and that is where we differ because I didn't accept the propaganda that was spread in order to legalize murder and that is all it is......murder of a human being who cannot even defend themselves.
I remember when this whole debate started back in the sixties; see how over forty years people have been brainwashed into believing "it" is not a human but rather a blob of something that is easy to get rid of it you don't call "it" by the rightful name.
Abortion is the killing of a human being.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Sept 11, 2009 15:55:14 GMT
Chefmate While I absolutely agree that the definition of 'human' should not depend on the ability of the organism to survive independently; otherwise severely disabled people and young children would not be human, I still can't agree that a cluster of cells (in the first trimester) is human. Like most people (I suspect) late term abortions present a more difficult issue, but I unequivocally can see no moral dimension whatsoever in a first trimester abortion. I think you're wrong historically also. The evidence seems to be that abortion was freely practiced in most ancient cultures, only becoming illegal in the 17th/18th/19th centuries when the Church's influence on the law was so fundamental. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Sept 11, 2009 16:34:25 GMT
I"m only going by my life experience on history and should have made that clearer.
I can truly understand why some women feel the need for an abortion and sympathize but for myself I would not do it as I was presented with the reality when my pregnant with my first child....they wanted to give a test to see if there were any defects and I declined the test as I simply could not murder my child because he wasn't perfect.
It is all a matter of choice and although I don't agree with abortion, I won't stop those from seeking it either.....I won't bomb clinics nor spit upon people entering to have the procedure done.
I wish there were better alternatives so women wouldn't have to choose abortion but sadly there are few places to turn for help anymore so ending the pregnancy does make sense although I still contend is it killing.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Sept 11, 2009 18:51:38 GMT
I"m only going by my life experience on history and should have made that clearer. I can truly understand why some women feel the need for an abortion and sympathize but for myself I would not do it as I was presented with the reality when my pregnant with my first child....they wanted to give a test to see if there were any defects and I declined the test as I simply could not murder my child because he wasn't perfect. It is all a matter of choice and although I don't agree with abortion, I won't stop those from seeking it either.....I won't bomb clinics nor spit upon people entering to have the procedure done. I wish there were better alternatives so women wouldn't have to choose abortion but sadly there are few places to turn for help anymore so ending the pregnancy does make sense although I still contend is it killing. Apart from the use of the word 'murder', there is not a thing you say here i disagree with. I respect your choice fully, and respect all women (and their men) who say that abortion is not for them.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Sept 16, 2009 0:38:46 GMT
Part of something I've just had occasion to put up elsewhere. I heard today something about Britain allowing women a whole six months of pregnancy leave from her corporate duties and even allowing men to share, as long as what he gets, the woman loses. Compare that with Sweden's something like two years for both and another two years intermittently shared between them and it makes Britain sounds like North Korea under pressure or old American Dixieland parading its compassion for slaves wanting their pickaninnies.
I'll support women wanting abortion so they can pursue a career. But I'll support even more longer maternity and paternity leave and 'socialist' state support for the much greater number of men and women who don't have the privilege of a career they want to put ahead of family life and just have to have a job to get by and have to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy because they just can't afford it in time or money. Career women mostly don't get pregnant without planning. A lot of girls do, maybe because they think it will give their dreary life some personal meaning, maybe because the boyfriend is a shit. If they had the choice, would they prefer to have it aborted so they can go on behind a till being a nothing with no prospects or would they at least like to feel they'd achieved something in having a child that they'd 'made' almost on their own when nobody values them as capable of anything else?
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Sept 16, 2009 3:01:20 GMT
you are giving some examples for abortions that are lousy excuses to kill an unborn baby in my opinion.
I'm glad I don't have to make that choice in my life or someone else's; I have my belief but certainly won't foist it on others
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 8:03:28 GMT
My own feeling is that we decide whether abortion is wrong at an early age, from our parents or perhaps our peer group. Someone who works with pregnant teenagers says a young girl is more likely to carry on with the pregnancy if she comes from a lower social class where abortion is usually frowned upon.*
Like riotgrrl, I don't think an embryo is a human being. It may have human DNA, but so do my toenails. Sorry, that might be seen as an insensitive example, but I couldn't think or a better illustration of what I mean.
*That doesn't mean that girls from other social classes don't choose to continue their pregnancies - of course they do! But peer pressure can be a big factor, and if you know your friends will condemn you as a "murderer" because you had an abortion, it will be a big factor in making a decision. There is much talk about girls being pressured by parents into having abortions, but from what Ive heard it is just as likely to work the other way.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Sept 16, 2009 13:37:15 GMT
A lot of girls do [get pregnant], maybe because they think it will give their dreary life some personal meaning, maybe because the boyfriend is a shit... I am sure ratarsed is right here - but is this a good basis for bringing a child into the world? A child conceived with the purpose of providing anything for the parents rather than for its own sake does not have the best start in life. I would rather see a widening of horzons for young people of both sexes.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Sept 16, 2009 15:32:57 GMT
My own feeling is that we decide whether abortion is wrong at an early age, from our parents or perhaps our peer group. Someone who works with pregnant teenagers says a young girl is more likely to carry on with the pregnancy if she comes from a lower social class where abortion is usually frowned upon.* Like riotgrrl, I don't think an embryo is a human being. It may have human DNA, but so do my toenails. Sorry, that might be seen as an insensitive example, but I couldn't think or a better illustration of what I mean. *That doesn't mean that girls from other social classes don't choose to continue their pregnancies - of course they do! But peer pressure can be a big factor, and if you know your friends will condemn you as a "murderer" because you had an abortion, it will be a big factor in making a decision. There is much talk about girls being pressured by parents into having abortions, but from what Ive heard it is just as likely to work the other way. Working class girls in the UK have always had their babies young. It's just that in the past they would either get married first, or else would be forced to marry when they got pregnant. There's no automatic reason why a 16 year old working class girl can't be as good (or even better) a parent than a 36 year old middle class woman who put of having a family until she'd progressed to a certain stage in her career. Indeed, it might even be true that, in terms of health, 16 is a better age to have babies than 36 . . arguably. Certainly 19 or 20 is a better age.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2009 19:27:41 GMT
riotgrrl, that might be true, but very young girls stand little chance of surviving on their own as parents. They need the support of their family, even if they also have a partner willing to take his share as a parent. (My contact is currently working with two 14 year old boys and their girlfriends- rather sweet I think)
As for supporting pregnant women - well, that's OK in principle, but to what end? Suppose a woman has a mental health of drugs issue which will make her a rotten parent? Is it better to abort or carry on with the pregnancy?
Women don't usually willingly give up their children to others to adopt. They might end up in care, but that is a pretty unsatisfactory outcome for everyone.
As for a late abortion which would allow someone else to nurture and adopt the child - I really can't see anyone living with that idea either.
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Oct 19, 2009 0:18:13 GMT
looks human to me
|
|