GA considering novel pro-life/anti-abortion tactic

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: glenn1

Could you explain to me then, as you've explicitly stated it, how abortion is any different from going to war to promote democracy?

When the pro-choice movement produces a St. Thomas Aquinas to develop a "just abortion theory," then we can have this conversation. Feel free to create your own thread if you want to explore the completely unrelated issue you raised (and/or its moral linkage to this issue) in greater detail but don't hijack this thread.

Abortion: killing innocents to allow the exercise of free will. Pro-abortion advocates believe allowing a woman to exercise her right to privacy (free will) is more pressing than the innocent life of an unborn fetus.
War: killing innocents to allow the exercise of free will. Pro-war advocates believe allowing Democracy to fluorish (free will) is more pressing than the innocent lives lost due to collateral damage.

The connection seems clear to me, as usual, I'm just pointing out blatant hypocrisy where I see it.

Death Penalty: killing those found guilty of henious crimes in a court of law
Abortion: killing those found guilty of existence in their mother's mind, existence brought forth by their judge, jury, and executioner.

Death Penalty: Our justice system is not infallible. It's quite possible that we've executed innocent persons. People are cleared of charges all the time when DNA evidence is presented while they're in prison. How do you feel about the possibility of executing an innocent person who did nothing?

Abortion: You believe a fetus is a person. That's merely your opinion. I don't think it is a person and *I* have the law on my side. So until you can prove a fetus is a person and change the legal status, I guess you're SOL. Good luck with that.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: glenn1You've let the goal subsume the means and destroy the soul of the woman involved to save the child?

What do you mean by this? How would this proposal destroy womens' "souls"?

 

[themusgrat]

You people were quite right to say that this is between 2 evils.
1. Killing a fetus that will be human one day.
2. Allowing people to think that it is their choice whether their child lives or not.

So,

1. First of all, the fetus is not a part of the mother. It has its own blood, DNA, etc. The mother provides nourishment for it, but then again, she still does when he/she is 12.
2. Even if a fetus is not a person yet, it will be. You are taking its life before it even has a chance to know it has life. Some people call that mercy. I call that sad, and murdering.
3. So what if the mother has to go through pain and suffering so her baby can live? This is called love. Furthermore, what choice does the father have in it? Did he contribute at all? Ummm... Since the fetus is not a part of the mother's body, and is definitely separated, it is not hers, and she should not have the sole choice of letting it live or not.

Today is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and in the 33 years since, over 42 million fetuses, or babies, or humans, however you look at it, have been killed. In the US alone. That is like killing off a major city, and the gov. supports it. Maybe they were not human at the time of their death, but they would have been, if only given the right to live.

Whatever side you are on, I think that most of us could agree that no one really knows for sure if they are human or not, but how could we be so wrong by erring on the cautious side?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
You people were quite right to say that this is between 2 evils.
1. Killing a fetus that will be human one day.
2. Allowing people to think that it is their choice whether their child lives or not.

Whatever side you are on, I think that most of us could agree that no one really knows for sure if they are human or not for sure, but how could we be so wrong by erring on the cautious side?

You're twisting the reality to fit your argument.

That's not the choice. The choice is whether the life of the mother is more important than the life of the fetus. In essence, you reduce a pregnant woman to the status of a slave, a vessel for the fetus, who has no rights.

Even you say there are doubts with regards to whether the fetus is human. But there is no doubt that the mother is... So allowing elective abortion actually IS erring on the side of caution.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: themusgrat
You people were quite right to say that this is between 2 evils.
1. Killing a fetus that will be human one day.
2. Allowing people to think that it is their choice whether their child lives or not.

Whatever side you are on, I think that most of us could agree that no one really knows for sure if they are human or not for sure, but how could we be so wrong by erring on the cautious side?

You're twisting the reality to fit your argument.

That's not the choice. The choice is whether the life of the mother is more important than the life of the fetus. In essence, you reduce a pregnant woman to the status of a slave, a vessel for the fetus, who has no rights.

Even you say there are doubts with regards to whether the fetus is human. But there is no doubt that the mother is... So allowing elective abortion actually IS erring on the side of caution.

No, I say that the fetus, since made by the mother and the father, and since it is not part of the mother, nor her property, should not depend on the mother's mood, or choice, for its life. She had her chance, in most cases, to not get pregnant. It is really easy to not have this dilemma. But now that she carries her child that will be a person, she has the responsibility to at least let it live.

Your argument depends on the argument that the fetus is the property of the mother. How can you post what you did knowing the number of fetuses killed? Do you not have any remorse at all?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: themusgrat

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: themusgrat
You people were quite right to say that this is between 2 evils.
1. Killing a fetus that will be human one day.
2. Allowing people to think that it is their choice whether their child lives or not.

Whatever side you are on, I think that most of us could agree that no one really knows for sure if they are human or not for sure, but how could we be so wrong by erring on the cautious side?

You're twisting the reality to fit your argument.

That's not the choice. The choice is whether the life of the mother is more important than the life of the fetus. In essence, you reduce a pregnant woman to the status of a slave, a vessel for the fetus, who has no rights.

Even you say there are doubts with regards to whether the fetus is human. But there is no doubt that the mother is... So allowing elective abortion actually IS erring on the side of caution.

No, I say that the fetus, since made by the mother and the father, and since it is not part of the mother, nor her property, should not depend on the mother's mood, or choice, for its life. She had her chance, in most cases, to not get pregnant. It is really easy to not have this dilemma. But now that she carries her child that will be a person, she has the responsibility to at least let it live.

Your argument depends on the argument that the fetus is the property of the mother. How can you post what you did knowing the number of fetuses killed? Do you not have any remorse at all?

Sorry, but I don't share your point of view. My concern is the mother, the father, and the social implications of an unwanted child on the parents, their families, society, and the child itself. In other words, my care for human life extends much further than the act of birth.

 

[themusgrat]

In America, laws look beyond social implications when it comes to life and death. Ex. Well, you killed your 12 year old, but since you and everyone around you will be adversely affected, we'll let it slide.

There are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents.

EDIT: At least most laws.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
In America, laws look beyond social implications when it comes to life and death. Ex. Well, you killed your 12 year old, but since you and everyone around you will be adversely affected, we'll let it slide.

There are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents.

/shrug

I won't convince you, and likewise, you won't convince me. I don't believe that abortion is moral, but I think that at this point there is no better option.

To ruin the lives of a few people, and bring an unwanted child into the world, is a horrible proposition, given that these same people might have a wanted child later.

 

[themusgrat]

Well, it is their fault they did you-know-what. Since the person is who determines his/her own worth, these children don't have to live miserable lives. And if they didn't want to take care of the child, they could put him/her up for adoption. Killing their child isn't the only answer.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
Well, it is their fault they did you-know-what. Since the person is who determines his/her own worth, these children don't have to live miserable lives. And if they didn't want to take care of the child, they could put him/her up for adoption. Killing their child isn't the only answer.

You place your morality above human physiology. I don't.

 

[themusgrat]

Oh. I see now, that is a topic for a different thread.