|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 5, 2004 19:19:28 GMT -5
If we kill it early enough, its not as bad as if we kill it later" What?
I could say the exact same thing, 'CUZ NOBODY'S ARGUING THAT.
The real argument is: We can kill life that is perceived to be of less value.
Your argument has to address why an unwanted, unborn life should be treated the same as a born life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ender312 on Mar 5, 2004 22:26:33 GMT -5
Ok I'll go with this for a minute. How do you define unborn life and born life. In your opinion what is the difference?
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 8, 2004 21:09:28 GMT -5
There is only one difference, but it is the only one that should matter:
An child that is born is wanted by its mother, either to keep for herself or to keep alive to give away. I agree with the mangled reasoning of Roe v. Wade largely because I think that no woman should be forced to be pregnant if she does not want to be, but that after a certain point, her argument for control over her body becomes less compelling. If a woman has been responsible about taking birth control but it fails, she should have a window of time during which she can assert her desire not to bear a child. If she lets the situation go until the third trimester, in my mind, she has demonstrated insufficient interest in preventing the pregnancy. If she actually gives birth, the point is moot.
If pregnancy were perfectly preventable, I would have no problem with making abortion illegal. The only viable 100% birth control available now is abstinence. Go ahead and argue for abstinence. And I will argue that I should not be prevented from being able to have sex with my future husband because he has a medical condition that would make it irresponsible for us to have children. Find me a doctor who will sterilize 28 year olds routinely, and I'd have no problem with making abortion illegal. They don't exist. They all insist that you'll change your mind and refuse to listen.
Bottom line is that it's not about the babies. If it were, there are a billion ways that the demand for abortion could be reduced or even eliminated, but pro-lifers typically have ZERO interest in any of that, belying their true motivation: returning women to the subservience of men.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 9, 2004 10:08:43 GMT -5
The only question is if it is a human life. Once you have determined that it is indeed a human life it is immoral to kill it. The pro abortion folks admit that it is. They claim that is is the hardest decision a woman has to make. If it is all the things they claim it is - safe, and not immoral, it wouldn't be a tough choice. It has nothing to do with female subservience. Half of the lives that the pro life movement want to save are female.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 9, 2004 11:19:38 GMT -5
Why isn't that the "only question" when we talk about when we cause civilian deaths? Or even, for that matter, when we put criminals to death? We make judgements about when it's o.k. to kill people ALL THE TIME, and often the people that we decide it's "o.k." to kill are no more "guilty" than an unborn, unwanted child.
Murder, in your mind, is a crime because god said it's so?
In my mind, murder should be illegal because I would not want to be deprived of life (in a way that's distinctly different than the way a cow wants to continue living) AND because I wouldn't want someone to be able to kill my family with impunity. NONE OF WHICH applies to an unborn, unwanted fetus.
Abortion would not be a tough choice for me, but it's largely because of the backwardness of people like you that there's still a stigma attached. I would have no problem with the procedure, any more than I would with any other medical procedure.
It has EVERYTHING to do with subservience. No one cared about abortion until after women started the fight for women's rights in the early nineteenth century. Then it became a PROBLEM, and all the unborn lives experienced a dramatic rise in VALUE. Hogwash. You should read Roe v. Wade. Then read about the history of the suffragist movement. It's very clearly written throughout all the history books that anti-abortion forces rose in tandem with the feminist movement.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 9, 2004 11:38:23 GMT -5
It rose as the number of abortions rose. Abortion was never seen through such callous eyes, except perhaps in pre-nazi Germany. When the intrinsic value of human life is reduced to how much it is valued among people it creates the circumstances for which the holocaust took place. Why not kill all the old useless eaters that no longer contribute to society? Why not kill off the sick or disabled? If someone is ill to the point that their children should be aborted, why not kill them?
As far as the death penalty, I don't support it. I do find it ironic that some of its strongest detractors find no problem with killing the innocent in the womb. That's moral bankruptcy.
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 9, 2004 21:02:13 GMT -5
No, it rose as the number of surgical abortions rose. Women have been terminating pregnancies as long as they have been "prone" to them. Men just didn't know about it, or care, that is, until women also wanted to be able to vote.
Also not true. Why do you think Roe v. Wade passed? BECAUSE THE STATE HAD FAILED TO EXPRESS SUFFICIENT INTEREST IN PROTECTING THE UNBORN. That's why Bush et al are so busy frantically trying to get legislation in place demonstrating the state's (new found) interest in protecting the unborn.
Note: the Holocaust took place long before abortion became legal in the United States, or prevalent anywhere, INCLUDING GERMANY. Which proves my point: abortion hasn't eroded a "culture of life" that once existed, it is a symptom of the fact that man has never really valued life that much in the first place.
Neither do I. I simply support the right of women to kill their unborn children so long as they live in a world that supports it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ted on Mar 9, 2004 23:07:13 GMT -5
I'm really getting sick of the whole "it's my body, I can do what I want" argument. Let's say I want to smoke crack. It's my body right? There shouldn't be any regulation on my body, right? And yet there is. Why do people tolerate these laws and not the abortion ones? An unborn fetus is part of the woman's body, right? It has no distinction, right? So a pregnant woman can have two heads? Two hearts? Male genitalia, assuming the fetus is male? My, that's interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 10, 2004 0:33:03 GMT -5
Not only is your post full of contradiction, it is factually in error. Germany was already a culture of selective killing by the time of the holocaust. Abortion was prevalent in pre nazi Germany and set the stage for euthanasia. It eventually led to the killing of the elderly and the disabled. That's why most of the doctors were willing to go along. They already had the cold attitude that you do. It's the same logic carried out to the next logical conclusion.
I see absolutely no moral difference between a convenience abortion and running someone over in a parking lot because they are in your way.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 10, 2004 1:03:50 GMT -5
No one could have put the matter more cogently and authoritatively than has Dr. Leo Alexander, who worked with the Chief American Counsel at the Nuremberg Tribunal:
|
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 10, 2004 9:42:36 GMT -5
Ted: I'm for the decriminalization of drugs. So I would have absolutely no problem with you smoking crack if you want to.
Mo: You gave no reference for your quote. Please do. I would like to find your source of information, read it, and respond.
If you don't give a readily accessible reference, I'm going to assume you made it up or yanked the quote off of some pro-life site and never really did the research yourself.
This, of course, will be bolstered by the fact that none of your quotes directly supports that abortion was prevalent in Nazi-germany, that it would be just like pro-lifers to spew such untruths, as pro-life sites are typically run by idiots who make zero attempt to even create an illusion of legitimacy, despite the fact that it would better serve their cause, and that abortion as a surgical procedure did not become safe, or prevalent anywhere until the 1950s:
Incidentally, what I've found thus far about Nazi Germany indicates that:
The evil of Nazi Germany wasn't that they allowed women to CHOOSE abortion (which they didn't-especially if you weren't Jewish), but forced abortion. Don't try to pretend that women being able to choose to terminate is the same as Nazis forcing Jewish women to terminate because they were perceived as "inferior," such that they shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 10, 2004 11:35:24 GMT -5
Germany had a pro death push in PRE-nazi Germany. No need to give me a history lesson. I'm aware that while Hitler ruled, abortion was illegal for some women, forced abortions and sterilizations was the order of the day for others. "Enlightened" people believed in eugenics. You are so locked in your baby killing self righteousness that you missed my point. That killing babies and killing the sick will move on to other human justifications. A culture that plucks off those most worthy of our protection, the very young and the sick and old is a culture on its down fall and completely devoid of morals. It goes right along with Darwinism. You're right in that if you have no belief in God than there is no sanctity of life, and no reason to not kill anyone. There are no reasons for morals and they don't exist. Only personal preferences exist in that world. I think it's interesting that you accuse me of using pro-life sites when I have only used a quote from the Nuremberg Trial. I'll disregard any garbage you spew from you pro death site. Even your whacked out "progressive" friends acknowledge what he said. I'm surprised you don't know about the Nuremberg trials. www.larouchepub.com/impeach_ridge/ridge_5.htmlwww.ushmm.org/research/doctors/ |
|
|
|
Post by Favre on Mar 10, 2004 19:16:33 GMT -5
Bottom line is that it's not about the babies. If it were, there are a billion ways that the demand for abortion could be reduced or even eliminated, but pro-lifers typically have ZERO interest in any of that, belying their true motivation: returning women to the subservience of men. While I will admit that having women return to subservience is a wonderful idea, you have really missed the mark. The point is really a very simple one. Should we be able to murder human beings with impunity? If you really demand that you and you alone have the right to decide the fate of your baby, then I agree with MO. If you alone have the choice, then you alone should be responsible for the choice. I guess we can end child support now. |
|
|
|
Post by remedios on Mar 10, 2004 19:46:03 GMT -5
Actually, apparently there was.
Funny that that's not what you said, despite the fact that it could still have been used to support your argument. It's just so much more effective to dispense with fact and try to see if you can pull of a little half-truth without me noticing though, isn't it?
Are you saying Hitler was enlightened? Shame on you.
Actually, I got the point, but wanted to force you to admit that you weren't entirely correct in your first presentation of things. Got to keep things accurate, now don't we?
And for this you use Nazi Germany, under Hitler???
Nazi Germany under Hitler slipped into eugenics because Hitler wanted a ready-made excuse to kill Jews and gays, etc., BECAUSE HE WAS INSANE.
No one who argues for reproductive rights argues analogously for killing Jews, gays, the mentally disabled or ill. Hitler was a unique and singular occurence.
Abortion has been legal for over a quarter century in this country, and you haven't seen anyone pushing legislation to kill the mentally disabled, Jews or gays, have you? NO. Case in point!
Please state your understanding of Darwinism. I've asked you before and you haven't answered. I've asked because you keep referring to his theory in such a way as to convince me that your understanding of his ideas is at best the popular one, which is a FAR, FAR cry from the writings of Mr. Darwin himself, and, incidentally, does not support indiscriminately killing anyone someone thinks "weak."
Actually, I believe that if you have a belief in God, there IS a sanctity of LIFE, and there is a universal reason not to kill ANYTHING without justification (of which there isn't much). As soon as everyone gets on that bandwagon, I'd have absolutely zero problem with making abortion illegal. If we all wanted to create a "culture of life," our focus would shift radically from thinking about ourselves and our tribe to thinking about the survival and happiness of everyone but ourselves.
Unfortunately, that's NEVER going to happen. I simply believe that if men are going to continue to go to war over food and resources, kill those they don't like, and neglect those they deem unfit, then women should be free to respond accordingly. And it should surprise no one that some of them choose to rip their unborn from their wombs in response.
Zero problem here. Z-E-R-O. The only people who have ever supported me financially other than myself were my parents. If and when I decide to have a child, it will be no different.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Mar 10, 2004 22:30:12 GMT -5
My first post didn't contradict my second. Abortion was prevalent in pre-nazi Germany. Your just breaking everything down and picking nits so as not to try to even look at the big picture. People shouldn't be deciding to have wholesale slaughters of large groups of people because they are vulnerable and don't have a voice. You see the same kind of social Darwinism becoming common place in our nations home's for the elderly. Murder is wrong! It is particularly heinous to murder your own children, even if you aren't living in your dream socialist utopia.
|
|
