26 Jul 05
Originally posted by lioyankThe line was drawn by nature. A fetus is wholly contained in a woman's body; until it can live outside that body, it's her decision what to do with her body parts. People of Jewish descent aren't included wholly inside other people's bodies so that's hogwash. Society (meaning the majority) has no right to adopt "moral stances" limiting the fundamental rights of others ("the minority"😉 based on the moral preferences of th majority. That's Lockean Fundamental Rights philosophy which is what the US is based on.
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
Originally posted by wibbut by saying this, you are already falling from the slippery slope. what i'm trying to say is if we start questioning what is and isn't life this late in "the stage of the game" (ie: the pregnancy), we allow for the interpretation of further possibilities. For example, just how much worth does the "life" of a mentally disabled person have? Would it be "OK" just to put them out of their "misery"? Some "individuals" who might be related to such a person would argue and say yes, since they are not capable of the same thought processes that we are accustomed to, they should have the right to decide (since they are family, afterall) whether or not to "put him/her out of his/her misery".
But 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?
Now, before you post that i'm insane, just please remember that this wouldn't happen overnight. It took Hitler years to begin the "final solution", but would anyone have seen this coming in the early 1900s? to think what he was going to do, and to say it that early on, would have seemed bizarre by most, possibly even seem as "crazy" and "not possible". But it did indeed happen. All of these events needed to start somewhere. I'm just trying to prevent the culture of death before it gets out of hand.
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by lioyankI promise I'll never post that you're "insane". 🙂
but by saying this, you are already falling from the slippery slope. what i'm trying to say is if we start questioning what is and isn't life this late in "the stage of the game" (ie: the pregnancy), we allow for the interpretation of further possibilities. For example, just how much worth does the "life" of a mentally disabled person have? Would it be ...[text shortened]... to start somewhere. I'm just trying to prevent the culture of death before it gets out of hand.
I think your reference to the "culture of death" says a lot about what you believe. I've heard that term thrown about quite a bit, but I've never met anyone that prescribed to it. I'm not even sure what it means?
You seem to believe that allowing abortions leads us down a path where we're willing to kill other humans for the slightest failings? I don't see how you're making that connection. I have friends that are pro-choice and none of them have ever even discussed a culture of death. Is that truly what you're afraid of? That if we continue to allow abortions we're going to slide down some slippery slope into a culture where we kill people solely based on their religious beliefs, or a physical handicap, etc?
26 Jul 05
Society, the state, has a right to adopt "moral stances" limiting the fundamental rights of others if those rights infringe on other peoples fundamental rights. The "Right to Life" is the most fundamental and most important Human Right.
If people try to take away the Right to Life of an unborn child the state has the obligation to intervene, because the state has the duty to protect EVERYBODIES rights, not just the rights or much worse, the privileges, of certain groups of people.
One should not confuse privileges and Human Rights. The privilege to kill somebody used to be the monarch's privilege. Now it seems that this privilege is handed over to doctors who can decide who is to live and who is to die. On one hand the Right to Life has been taken away from unborn children and on the other hand simultaneously women and doctors have been given the PRIVILEGE to kill the same unborn.
The state is protecting a privilege of a certain group at the expense of the fundamental "Right to Life" of another group.
The confusing heart of the matter is that those who advocate the privilege of killing the unborn do not calll this a privilege, but a right. Apparently because those who are being granted the privilege are so many that one is inclined not to call it a privilege but a right.
This is turning things upside down.
The notion of Human Rights is deliberately being misinterpreted, curtailed and falsified to please a certain politically mighty faction in society: women (feminists and their advocates) and doctors (scientists).
This is the gross injustice that is going on.
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeNope. You completely missed the main point. "Human life".
Society, the state, has a right to adopt "moral stances" limiting the fundamental rights of others if those rights infringe on other peoples fundamental rights. The "Right to Life" is the most fundamental and most important Human Right.
If people try to take away the Right to Life of an unborn child the state has the obligation to intervene, because ...[text shortened]... eir advocates) and doctors (scientists).
This is the gross injustice that is going on.
Is an abortion at 1 week equal to the taking of a human life? How about 1 day? 1 minute? 4 months? Some say yes, some say no. Nobody knows.
So you can't say we're violating the rights of a human life if we can't prove it's a human life.
26 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by wibPlease check out:
Nope. You completely missed the main point. "Human life".
Is an abortion at 1 week equal to the taking of a human life? How about 1 day? 1 minute? 4 months? Some say yes, some say no. Nobody knows.
So you can't say we're vio ...[text shortened]... rights of a human life if we can't prove it's a human life.
WHEN DOES HUMAN PERSONHOOD BEGIN, AND
HOW DO WE PROCEED WHEN WE CANNOT AGREE?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when1.htm
" There is a near consensus that at, or shortly after conception, a zygote or pre-embryo -- popularly called a fertilized ovum -- is a form of human life. The zygote is "...is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life:
-metabolism,
-growth,
-reaction to stimuli, and
-reproduction." 1
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeI read that when you posted it in the earlier post, but it doesn't answer any questions. It just lists what different people believe and talks about the difficulty of discussing abortion.
Please check out:
WHEN DOES HUMAN PERSONHOOD BEGIN, AND
HOW DO WE PROCEED WHEN WE CANNOT AGREE?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when1.htm
Thanks for the link though.
I still don't know when a human life begins. Everyone has a different answer. And no one has any proof.
26 Jul 05
1 edit
Ok here's a scenario that everyone has a different answer for. Here's the dilemma...
Bad guy walks into a store. Pulls a gun on a clerk. He's gonna rob the place.
The clerk is a woman. She screams, scares the bad guy, he pulls the trigger and shoots her in the head. Bam! She hits the floor and she's dead.
She was also 2 weeks pregnant.
The Bad guy gets picked up by the police later on.
You're the prosecutor in the case. How many murders do you charge the bad guy with? Keep in mind that in order to charge someone with murder you also have to prove that the victim was alive and well before the specific act was committed that ended up killing them...
If you charge the bad guy with 2 murders, how do you prove he killed a *living* human being in the case of the fetus/baby?
No matter how many people I ask that of, I get lots of different answers and never any proof.
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe fetus has traditionally not had any legal rights as you would know if you read Roe v. Wade. Defining a fetus as a "living human being" is begging the question; it is most certainly "alive" as are germs and mosquitos but whether it is a "human being" with fundamental rights is the very question asked. It has traditionally not been considered so.
Society, the state, has a right to adopt "moral stances" limiting the fundamental rights of others if those rights infringe on other peoples fundamental rights. The "Right to Life" is the most fundamental and most important Human Right.
If people try to take away the Right to Life of an unborn child the state has the obligation to intervene, because ...[text shortened]... eir advocates) and doctors (scientists).
This is the gross injustice that is going on.
The interference with a woman's personal autonomy could not be greater; not only is she compelled to unwillingly procreate but people like Ivanhoe want to create a panoply of related restrictions on hr personal freedom while she is being forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy. To deny her this freedom under threat of prison is despotism in its most rawest form. It is a theocracy akin the what people like Osama desire; a subjugation of women based on the religious beliefs of others. A woman who is exercising her own personal liberty over her own body parts should be left alone by the State. That is basic, fundamental rights theory, the very linchpin of American society at its founding.
26 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by wibWib: "I still don't know when a human life begins. Everyone has a different answer. And no one has any proof."
I read that when you posted it in the earlier post, but it doesn't answer any questions. It just lists what different people believe and talks about the difficulty of discussing abortion.
Thanks for the link though.
I still don't kn ...[text shortened]... Everyone has a different answer. And no one has any proof.
"There is a near consensus that at, or shortly after conception, a zygote or pre-embryo -- popularly called a fertilized ovum -- is a form of human life. The zygote is "...is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life:
-metabolism,
-growth,
-reaction to stimuli, and
-reproduction." 1
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when1.htm
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeCrucial phrase: "is a form of human life." That's a quite different thing from saying what you claimed: that a fetus was a living human being from conception. I'd say they're using precise terminology and you are not, Ivanhoe.
Wib: "I still don't know when a human life begins. Everyone has a different answer. And no one has any proof."
"There is a near consensus that at, or shortly after conception, a zygote or pre-embryo -- popularly called a fertilized ovum -- is a form of human life. The zygote is "...is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to e ...[text shortened]... on to stimuli, and
-reproduction." 1
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when1.htm
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeNope, that still doesn't get it. I read that. But that simply goes back to the point No1 is making above. It's *alive*, but so is a fungus, a single cell, and a house plant. A "form of human life" or "biologically alive" isn't the same as what I am right now. I'm more than that. We're all more than that.
Wib: "I still don't know when a human life begins. Everyone has a different answer. And no one has any proof."
"There is a near consensus that at, or shortly after conception, a zygote or pre-embryo -- popularly called a fertilized ovum -- is a form of human life. The zygote is "...is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to e ...[text shortened]... on to stimuli, and
-reproduction." 1
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when1.htm
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by wibWHEN DOES HUMAN LIFE BEGIN?
Nope, that still doesn't get it. I read that. But that simply goes back to the point No1 is making above. It's *alive*, but so is a fungus, a single cell, and a house plant. A "form of human life" or "biologically alive" isn't the same as what I am right now. I'm more than that. We're all more than that.
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/intro5.html