Who Do you Agree with?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by jamber97

if she feels her unborn mass should live or die. I don't feel that all life has an intrinsic value that trumps all.

I find this statement and the definition of an unborn child offensive and dehumanizing.

I am sure that the Nazi concentration camp guards felt similarly about their prisoners.

Congratulations.

TR

[USANick7]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

I find this statement and the definition of an unborn child offensive and dehumanizing.

I am sure that the Nazi concentration camp guards felt similarly about their prisoners.

Congratulations.

TR

I agree, but Jamber has recanted, and accepted the definition I presented.

[Sigaba]

During the 1830s, Southern slaveholders developed a multi-faceted defense of slavery on the basis of notions of white supremacy. A political component of their belief system was the view that slaves were property. Slaveholders argued that they had the right to determine what happened to their property. Slaveholders also argued that science 'proved' that Africans were not quite human and therefore not entitled to the natural rights of people of European descent.

In my view, those who favor a woman's right to slaughter her unborn child frequently offer arguments that are disturbingly similar to these two components of one of the most self destructive ideologies Western civilization has ever produced. (Here, I am agreeing with John Dower and others who argue that notions of racial superiority are a double-edged knife that cuts deeply the wielding hand.)

I believe that arguing that the body is property is ultimately an act of self-annihilation. If feminist history teaches us anything, it shows that some men have dominated some women by defining women as property. In my view, turning that argument on its head and saying women own themselves is not an intellectually sustainable position because property can be bought, sold, and stolen. To put it bluntly: if a woman can argue that she owns her body, a pimp can argue that she's his piece of ass. (As evidence, I would refer an interested party here).

In my view, arguing that science proves the validity of a political and cultural argument is perilous. The only sure lesson of scientific inquiry is that what we know is but a shadow of what we don't know. What will we say as a society if science eventually proves what many (including myself) believe: that human beings are invested with an immortal soul and that soul takes shape at the moment of conception?

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by USANick7

So you are claiming that while life does have intrinsic value, this fact does not "trump all".

Correct

Originally Posted by USANick7

If an innocent persons right to live, doesn't supersede all other rights, don't you run into a very obvious problem?

Not at all. A right is a moral sanction to freedom of action in a social context. Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason. A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its mother. The only rational action it must take is nothing, it just waits for itself to develop using the nurishment provided by its mother.

Originally Posted by USANick7

If my right to live does not trump another persons right to kill me, don't we run into some very serious problems?

You're a human being. A fetus is not a human being unless it can be supported outside its mother. Its a potential human being.

[Sigaba]

Jamber,

Have you ever read a legal definition of homicide? It is my understanding that, for example, California Penal Code Section 187 defines homicide as "the. unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice, aforethought." Does not this language establish that, at least in California, an unborn child does have at least one right: the right not to be killed unlawfully? (If I misunderstand the language here, I hope that a member of the bar will correct me.)

Also, by your logic, babies born prematurely or with special needs who could not survive without medical intervention could be subject to termination.

Originally Posted by jamber97

Correct


Not at all. A right is a moral sanction to freedom of action in a social context. Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason. A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its mother. The only rational action it must take is nothing, it just waits for itself to develop using the nurishment provided by its mother.

You're a human being. A fetus is not a human being unless it can be supported outside its mother. Its a potential human being.

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Jamber,

Have you ever read a legal definition of homicide? It is my understanding that, for example, California Penal Code Section 187 defines homicide as "the. unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice, aforethought." Does not this language establish that, at least in California, an unborn child does have at least one right: the right not to be killed unlawfully? (If I misunderstand the language here, I hope that a member of the bar will correct me.)

Also, by your logic, babies born prematurely or with special needs who could not survive without medical intervention could be subject to termination.

We end up right back where we started. A womens right to choose. It's not unlawful to kill a fetus if the mother chooses to. It is unlawful to kill a fetus with out the mothers consent ie. malice. This statute adresses the right of the mother not the fetus. The fetus has no rights.

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

In my view, arguing that science proves the validity of a political and cultural argument is perilous. The only sure lesson of scientific inquiry is that what we know is but a shadow of what we don't know. What will we say as a society if science eventually proves what many (including myself) believe: that human beings are invested with an immortal soul and that soul takes shape at the moment of conception?

We end up backing into the religious side of the debate. This isn't something that should be forced on the masses that may not follow your religious beliefs. No ones saying that you don't have a right to follow this view in your own life but making others take the same approach goes against the intentions of a free society.

A fetus has no right to be in a womens body against her will.

[Constant]

Originally Posted by jamber97

A fetus has no right to be in a womens body against her will.

But what if the woman wanted to open her legs? She opted to have sex and became pregnant because of it. Detroy an unborn child because of the mother's or father's lack of self-control? Even with protection, risks exist and that risk is having a child; the "adults" in this case, should they accept the risk of having sex (risk = having a child), also should accept the child. But I like personal responsibility.

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by Constant

But what if the women wanted to open her legs?

That wouldn't be a justification to force her to carry the fetus since its a matter of rights and not that of sexual history.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by jamber97

Correct




Not at all. A right is a moral sanction to freedom of action in a social context. Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason. A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its mother. The only rational action it must take is nothing, it just waits for itself to develop using the nurishment provided by its mother.



You're a human being. A fetus is not a human being unless it can be supported outside its mother. Its a potential human being.

So if we follow your logic then a child truly has no rights then either, because it can not survive on its own, it needs the support of another human being to keep it alive as it cannot find its own food, feed itself, etc...

Additionally, your other comment about a fetus not having the right to be in the mother's body, that wins the boobie prize for the day in my opinion. I would say 99.9% of the time that fetus is there because the mother chose not to practice safe sex, therefore is accountable for that fetus being there in the first place. Don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex or practice safe sex.

I am not a proponent of abortion, but I do believe if a woman/girl has been raped they should have the right to choose. If the life of the mother is at risk I believe they have the right to chose as well. My personal opinion is I wouldn't have an abortion in any case, but I can't make that decision for another woman in a situation such as these. Other than that, if you practice safe sex or don't have it at all, then there shouldn't be a problem.

Unfortunately this world has become so narcissistic that the only thing that matters any more is ME!!!!

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by afchic

So if we follow your logic then a child truly has no rights then either, because it can not survive on its own, it needs the support of another human being to keep it alive as it cannot find its own food, feed itself, etc...

Additionally, your other comment about a fetus not having the right to be in the mother's body, that wins the boobie prize for the day in my opinion. I would say 99.9% of the time that fetus is there because the mother chose not to practice safe sex, therefore is accountable for that fetus being there in the first place. Don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex or practice safe sex.

I am not a proponent of abortion, but I do believe if a woman/girl has been raped they should have the right to choose. If the life of the mother is at risk I believe they have the right to chose as well. My personal opinion is I wouldn't have an abortion in any case, but I can't make that decision for another woman in a situation such as these. Other than that, if you practice safe sex or don't have it at all, then there shouldn't be a problem.

Unfortunately this world has become so narcissistic that the only thing that matters any more is ME!!!!

Following my logic a child would be a human being and therefore have rights.The issue of whether the women chose to have sex, or not, is irrelevant since the essential issue is not a matter of sexual history, but a matter of rights.

So following your line of reason a condom determines a womens right to abort or not abort?

[Pete]

Originally Posted by jamber97

...... A fetus is not a human being unless it can be supported outside its mother. Its a potential human being.

Jamber;

You have just agreed with the majority of posters here. At least in that 3rd trimester abortions should be restricted. Since it is not uncommon for 6 month old babies to be viable in these days.

The agrument will now have to move into the 2nd trimester.

Pete

[jamber97]

For the record, I'm not a proponent of abortion either. I am a proponent of human rights and effective abortion prevention through education.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by jamber97

Following my logic a child would be a human being and therefore have rights.The issue of whether the women chose to have sex, or not, is irrelevant since the essential issue is not a matter of sexual history, but a matter of rights.

So following your line of reason a condom determines a womens right to abort or not abort?

If you chose to have sex and become pregnant, whose fault is it, the tooth fairy's??? If you have fear of a condom breaking, or the birth control pill not working, or any other plethora of reasons I am sure you will throw back at me, then don't have sex.

Here is a story for you. When I was a 1st Lt, I was single, on birth control, and got pregnant. Now I had my sq/cc as well as my 1st Sgt and a bunch of other senior ranking officers tell me that it would be best for career if I had an abortion because being a single parent took a lot of effort, and would be distracting to my career. Sounds difficult to believe, but it is true.

My take was, I was the one who made the mistake, not the child I was carrying. So why should it have to pay for my mistakes? Had I a been a little more selfish, maybe that would have been the road I took. But my parents taught me to own up to my mistakes, and learn from them. So I was a single parent for 5 years, and guess what, it didn't effect my career in the least. Now my daughter is 11 years old and has been the light of my life from the moment I found out I was pregnant.

I am tired of people saying they have the "right" to have sexual intercourse, but the child created doesn't have the right to live. I have the "right" to bash my husband over the head if he pisses me off, but there are also consequences to be paid for said action.

Do you know how many families there are in this country seeking to adopt a child? If you don't want the child, fine put it up for adoption. There is no excuse for the killing of an innocent life because it is an inconvenience, or the timing isn't right, or I am just not ready to be a parent. Goes back to my narcissism idea.

[Sigaba]

I think that in your haste you are misreading or reading selectively the posts of people who disagree with your position.

We are not 'backing into' anything. I am suggesting a scenario in which science confirms a matter of faith and that matter of faith then becomes a matter of scientific 'fact.'

Granted, this scenario suggests a paradigm shift of Copernican dimensions and is therefore, according to the late Thomas Kuhn, unlikely, but science does have a tricky way of making the improbable common place.

Considering the fact that Americans are historically a very religious group overall, why should values derived from religious sensibilities not play a pivotal role in the formulation of public policy.

(In anticipation of the separation of the church and state argument, I would ask: are you sure that the separation of church and state exists for the protection of the state and not for the protection of religious freedom?)

Originally Posted by jamber97

We end up backing into the religious side of the debate. This isn't something that should be forced on the masses that may not follow your religious beliefs. No ones saying that you don't have a right to follow this view in your own life but making others take the same approach goes against the intentions of a free society.

A fetus has no right to be in a womens body against her will.