bringbackwigs
Professional Post-Whore
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +156/-183
Posts: 3,103
Please refrain from taking my posts seriously
|
 |
« on: October 10, 2007, 06:44:01 PM » |
|
Woo-hoo!!!
Anyways, other than morally, why are you against abortion? Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
In religion and politics, people\\\\\\\\\'s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination. - Mark Twain  |
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +212/-207
Posts: 4,097
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2007, 06:56:28 PM » |
|
Welcome to Pandora's Box everybody.
A child's right to life is more important than a mother's right to choose.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
bringbackwigs
Professional Post-Whore
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +156/-183
Posts: 3,103
Please refrain from taking my posts seriously
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2007, 07:00:00 PM » |
|
Is that a moral stance?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
In religion and politics, people\\\\\\\\\'s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination. - Mark Twain |
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +212/-207
Posts: 4,097
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2007, 07:06:06 PM » |
|
Is that a moral stance? No. A constitutional one. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
bringbackwigs
Professional Post-Whore
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +156/-183
Posts: 3,103
Please refrain from taking my posts seriously
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2007, 07:10:13 PM » |
|
Is that a moral stance? No. A constitutional one. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" * I am clinically drunk, so this is my last serious post of the day* Is that what you really believe? Or is that just a slogan? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
In religion and politics, people\\\\\\\\\'s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination. - Mark Twain |
|
|
Totino
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +105/-133
Posts: 1,354
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2007, 07:26:21 PM » |
|
Is that a moral stance? No. A constitutional one. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" * I am clinically drunk, so this is my last serious post of the day* Is that what you really believe? Or is that just a slogan? It's what I really believe... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 \\\"Since you\\\'re going to loose everything anyway when you die, you might as well get rid of it now\\\" \\\"All creations, including god, originate in the mind\\\" |
|
|
PinkTickingClocks
Full Member
Karma: +12/-13
Posts: 182
Be always at war with your vices.
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2007, 07:30:12 PM » |
|
If it weren't for morals we'd be killing PEOPLE, not only unborn babies.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If only the transcendent moments were as timeless as a broken clock.
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +212/-207
Posts: 4,097
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2007, 07:39:12 PM » |
|
Is that a moral stance? No. A constitutional one. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" * I am clinically drunk, so this is my last serious post of the day* Is that what you really believe? Or is that just a slogan? If I didn't believe it, would I have posted it? P.S. You type amazingly well for a drunk person. If it weren't for morals we'd be killing PEOPLE, not only unborn babies. Very true. Not to mention the same constitutional argument for the protection of our rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" can be applied to murder as well. Also, welcome to IAP  . |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 10, 2007, 07:42:37 PM by Abraxas »
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +106/-105
Posts: 1,063
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 10, 2007, 08:09:32 PM » |
|
Is that a moral stance? No. A constitutional one. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" This brings up a few questions. I have heard it said that the Constitutional rights only apply to US citizens. If this is true, the fetus would have to be a US citizen for this to apply. Is the fetus a citizen? It doesn't have a social security number, or a name, legally speaking. A birth certificate is normally the document used to establish these things. Looking at this from a constitutional rights paradigm, I believe the rights of the US citizen [the mother (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)]would have primacy. IMO, a much better case could be made under the more universal concept of human rights. There are practical reasons why I oppose banning abortion (prevention of back-alley abortions, etc.), but on a fundamental level I say the mother's right of physical self determination overrides the the fetus' right to life, as well as the state's interest in prohibiting harm to the fetus. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +212/-207
Posts: 4,097
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 10, 2007, 08:33:27 PM » |
|
Is that a moral stance? No. A constitutional one. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" This brings up a few questions. I have heard it said that the Constitutional rights only apply to US citizens. Then that person never read the Decleration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Government is created to protect the rights we already have as human, not the ones we earn as American citizens. The more tittalating argument is whether life begins at conception, not so much whether a fetus deserves the rights of a human being. And now we come full circle to an argument without a victor. If this is true, the fetus would have to be a US citizen for this to apply. Is the fetus a citizen? It doesn't have a social security number, or a name, legally speaking. A birth certificate is normally the document used to establish these things.
Looking at this from a constitutional rights paradigm, I believe the rights of the US citizen [the mother (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)]would have primacy. IMO, a much better case could be made under the more universal concept of human rights. The UN Charter is not needed... mostly because that document's format is very similar to our own Decleration. Just as ours is similar to France's. There are practical reasons why I oppose banning abortion (prevention of back-alley abortions, etc.), but on a fundamental level I say the mother's right of physical self determination overrides the the fetus' right to life, as well as the state's interest in prohibiting harm to the fetus. I have to disagree... but it's quite clear arguing would be fruitless... so maybe we can just all agree to disagree and quickly let this fall to the bottom of the stack? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #10 on: October 11, 2007, 01:31:49 AM » |
|
The more tittalating argument is whether life begins at conception, not so much whether a fetus deserves the rights of a human being. I don't know how titillating it is but here is my two cents: IMO life doesn't begin at conception or at viability or the third trimester. Life began when the first paramecium put together enough nucleic acid to slime its way out of the primal goo many millions of years ago. Life is a continuum. Sperm and egg cells are live cells are they not?? I think the question you mean to ask is, at what point does the potential for an individual become a realized individual. This is subject to such a wide range of individual interpretation that every one has a different answer, morally, scientifically, spiritually and personally. This is why I support the free choice of the person who's body the action of cell union takes place in. This is an extremely personal decision. In fact I can't think of a more profoundly personal decision anyone can make. I maintain that nobody has the right to make that decision for her beyond advice.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 11, 2007, 01:33:37 AM by freethinker »
|
Logged
|
Yes we can ...and now we will...
|
|
|
Major Zee Lee
Forum cat lover
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +64/-169
Posts: 566
Kooks not allowed in (Secret meeting is next door)
|
|
« Reply #11 on: October 11, 2007, 01:46:41 AM » |
|
(...) If this is true, the fetus would have to be a US citizen for this to apply. Is the fetus a citizen? It doesn't have a social security number, or a name, legally speaking. A birth certificate is normally the document used to establish these things.
Looking at this from a constitutional rights paradigm, I believe the rights of the US citizen [the mother (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)]would have primacy. IMO, a much better case could be made under the more universal concept of human rights. The UN Charter is not needed... mostly because that document's format is very similar to our own Decleration. Just as ours is similar to France's. Silly commentary of the day... Abraxas, just BOTHER to read those papers and tell me if you don't notice a few differences (like, in extent or, houm, actual rights, houm, actually entitled...) As for abortion... - Life without freedom is not really life, unless the individual freely decides to trade freedom for life. - Fetuses are not free (as long as they are physiologically dependent on their mother's blood for nurture and oxygen) - Fetuses are not independent live beings (same parameters as above) - In not being free nor independent live beings, their right to life is overruled by mother's right to freely decide (which includes suicide, btw). Thus I agree with the right to abort earlier than the viability threshold (24 weeks) if the mother decides so. Only the mother can renounce to her freedom and NOBODY else is entiled any right to deprive her of such freedom, nor to punish her for the use of such freedom. But now, some people valor certain lives above of freedom... and interestingly enough, want to FORCE that opinion upon EVERYBODY ELSE... which is called Tyranny.  "Every moralist holds at least one cause worth of tyrannize his fellows" |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 11, 2007, 01:49:36 AM by Major Zee Lee »
|
Logged
|
Do not take life too seriously; nobody lives to tell.
|
|
|
layke
Newbie
Karma: +0/-2
Posts: 7
|
|
« Reply #12 on: October 11, 2007, 03:09:26 AM » |
|
If it weren't for morals we'd be killing PEOPLE, not only unborn babies.
Depends relly on what you define as morals, I don't consider an abortion and murder to be the same thing seeing as imo a baby in the early stages to me is nothing more then a dependant collection of cells growing in the mother's womb. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
5uperChicken
|
|
« Reply #13 on: October 11, 2007, 04:13:13 AM » |
|
I think that people who are on either extreme end of this issue are actually rare. There will always be cases in which it will be unthinkable to abort or not to abort. Baffles me that this is what people hang their hat on.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
2112
|
|
« Reply #14 on: October 11, 2007, 04:30:58 AM » |
|
I am for the right of the mother to terminate the pregnancy, but only in the first two months. A month after conception, you will know that you're pregnant, and that gives you a month to decide on or come up with the money for an abortion. After that, if you don't want a baby, you have options like adoption, finding a family member who will raise the baby, (which sucks for the family member). There is no shortage out there of childless parents who specifically want babies (not kids) and will most likely raise your child better than you could.
The truth is many women find adoptive parents before birth and at the last minute, after having had the baby, decide to keep the baby. Giving a baby up is one of the hardest things a woman can do, but then, for some women it's nothing because they weren't mentally prepared for it or were in denial through the pregnancy.
I would actually be totally against abortion, I have decided, except that if it were illegal, women will still find ways to do it that are dangerous to their health, so I am for a woman's choice in the first two months.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
