26 Jul 05
Originally posted by lioyankPlease see Roe v. Wade or even more basically, Griswold v. Connecticut. The right to decide whether to procreate or not is a basic, personal inalienable right of the woman. Lockean Fundamental Rights theory says governments are formed to protect the basic rights of individuals. Ergo, a law putting a woman in prison because she decided to have an abortion (i.e. not to procreate) is a violation of her basic rights and not something a government is allowed to do by the Natural Law.
Lockean Fundamental Rights: I touched on this VERY briefly. Even so, could you please enlighten me as to HOW this would pertain to abortion.
Non-viable fetuses not being persons in any sense cannot have "rights" and certainly cannot have rights that override a woman's basic fundamental ones.
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by lioyankOk, well I'll tell you why it's debatable for me.
i CAN NOT understand how this issue of abortion is even debatable.
i try to keep an open mind, but sometimes you open up your head just far enough to where your brain pops out.....
When does life begin? That's the first question I have to ask myself. My answer is "I don't know". If I ask ten different people I'll get ten different answers. Some will say it begins at conception. Some at 4 weeks, some 12 weeks, and some may even say that the fetus is a life only when it can exist outside of it's mother's womb.
Now we come to the issue of gestation periods. Babies develop at different rates inside of their mothers. Each woman is unique, as is the development of her fetus/child. So a baby/fetus that's 20 weeks old may be farther along in development than a baby that's 21 weeks old. Just depends...
So what some people would call a "life" inside of one mother is not a life inside of another. Depending on when they believe life begins.
Now we throw religion into the mix. Many people, of certain faiths, believe life begins at conception. Many non-religious people believe this also. They even believe that humans should not interfere in the fertilization process. This means NO birth control of any kind. The problem is this is usually a religious belief based upon a person's private faith. They have faith that life begins at conception, but no proof. So if we impose a law upon everyone that bans contraception/abortions then aren't we imposing religious beliefs upon American citizens that don't share those beliefs? IMO, yes we are. And if we do that doesn't it violate the first amendment rights of American citizens? Again I have to answer yes.
So the debate is about *choice* versus a *faith that life begins at conception*.
That's just my way of looking at it. And since I'm a man I'll never have to make a decision about whether or not to have an abortion. When I ask myself if I would want that *choice* my answer is yes. I may be wrong. Life may begin at conception. But for now I'll err on the side of the freedom to choose.
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by no1marauder"The right to decide whether to procreate or not is a basic, personal inalienable right of the woman."
Please see Roe v. Wade or even more basically, Griswold v. Connecticut. The right to decide whether to procreate or not is a basic, personal inalienable right of the woman. Lockean Fundamental Rights theory says governments are formed to protect the basic rights of individuals. Ergo, a law putting a woman in prison because she decided to have an ...[text shortened]... ave "rights" and certainly cannot have rights that override a woman's basic fundamental ones.
Ok, this I understand. However, as you say here yourself, it is "the right to DECIDE". A woman and man DECIDE to have sex. When they enter into a sexual union, they understand (or I would certainly hope they would) that becoming pregnant can be a direct result of what they "do". If they do not take measures to prevent the pregnancy from occurring, they DECIDE that producing a child is a possibility, and can indeed occur. With great "power" comes great responsibility. If they DECIDE to have sex, they should also have the maturity to accept their responsibilities (ie: having a baby).
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by lioyankSo you say. Why should your version of morality be binding on them? That's the whole point of having a fundamental right; other people's ideas aren't binding on you.
"The right to decide whether to procreate or not is a basic, personal inalienable right of the woman."
Ok, this I understand. However, as you say here yourself, it is "the right to DECIDE". A woman and man DECIDE to have sex. When they enter into a sexual union, they understand (or I would certainly hope they would) that becoming pregnant can be a dir ...[text shortened]... ve sex, they should also have the maturity to accept their responsibilities (ie: having a baby).
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by lioyankWib has just made one of my points pertinently.
20 weeks at maximum.....
12 weeks--- it's CLEARLY a baby....
maybe we can skip all this speculation and tell it like it is for what it is: at conception, there is life.
and I dont need the government to tell me that, nor do I need religion to tell me that. I honestly dont know how ANY parent (mother or father) could have NO regrets about having an ...[text shortened]... n. what's next? why not just save money on the abortion, and kill it on its way out at birth?!?
I believe life outside the womb is only just about possible from 20 weeks.
However there is far more about the abortion debate which you choose to ignore.
Leaving aside rape and under age cases. Most what you call "conveinient abortions" are based on good well thought decisions.
The Child, unloved children start at a disadvantage.
The Mother, might not be able to cope, may not be mature enough to be a mum, may have to give up her studies or career. A safe abortion has got to better than the back street.
Society, is it a coincidence that education standards have risen and crime has fallen since the changing of abortion leglislation in the late sixties and increase in abortions from the mid-seventies.
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by invigorateInvigorate: "Society, is it a coincidence that education standards have risen and crime has fallen since the changing of abortion leglislation in the late sixties and increase in abortions from the mid-seventies."
Wib has just made one of my points pertinently.
I believe life outside the womb is only just about possible from 20 weeks.
However there is far more about the abortion debate which you choose to ignore.
Leaving aside rape and under age cases. Most what you call "conveinient abortions" are based on good well thought decisions.
The Child, unlo ...[text shortened]... of abortion leglislation in the late sixties and increase in abortions from the mid-seventies.
I just knew it ..... here we go ..... the birth of a new myth ...... a useful one that's for sure.
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy? Because if we dont draw a line, then someone else's "fundamental right" of killing another human being simply because his "idea" of him is inferior, must also be acceptable. And I'm not being sarcastic or a smart-ass either. If society's moral stance on killing isn't binding starting with abortion, eventually it will come to this anyway. An "individual" will have the "fundamental right" to kill another human being based single-handedly on his "ideas" of why they are inferior. Such as because they are of Jewish descent. That much history, I do know. So, Mr. Marauder, where do YOU draw the line between the good of the individual and the good of society as a whole?
So you say. Why should your version of morality be binding on them? That's the whole point of having a fundamental right; other people's ideas aren't binding on you.
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by lioyankBut some of us aren't talking about killing another "human being". We're talking about deciding whether it's really a human being at all?
Why? Because if we dont draw a line, then someone else's "fundamental right" of killing another human being simply because his "idea" of him is inferior, must also be acceptable. And I'm not being sarcastic or a smart-ass either. If society's moral stance on killing isn't binding starting with abortion, eventually it will come to this anyway. An "in ...[text shortened]... here do YOU draw the line between the good of the individual and the good of society as a whole?
26 Jul 05
The Child, unloved children start at a disadvantage.I understand what you are saying here, however, have you ever thought about it this way: if those mothers WEREN'T mature enough to begin with, then they SHOULDN'T be having sex to begin with. By allowing for abortion to continue, we are allowing for women to have a "Plan B" in case they do get pregnant. In other words, we are just making the problem worse, since now they will be allowed to rely on having an abortion instead of abstaining from sex until they ARE mature enough to handle the consequences. By legalizing abortion, we are just allowing it to get worse. Do you see what I'm trying to say here?
The Mother, might not be able to cope, may not be mature enough to be a mum, may have to give up her studies or career. A safe abortion has got to better than the back street.
Society, is it a coincidence that education standards have risen and crime has fallen since the changing of abortion leglislation in the late sixties and increase in abortions from the mid-seventies. [/b]