Abortion.

[inked]

Rights carry responsibility.

The first right a person of either gender has in regard to abortion is the right to EMPLOY contraception.

Let's hear it for the exercise of that right pro-actively instead of abortion re-actively.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, because with capital punishment, there is the idea of known consequences for a criminal act. It's not a matter of "when" with criminals that have done crimes to earn the death penalty; it's not like "well, at 1 month you can execute them, but at 9 months you can't." It's totally different. The fetus is NOT being killed because of any action it has chosen. Abortion is NOT a consequence that the fetus deserved; capital punishment is.

how about an innocent child killed by a stray bomb during a war we thought of as "necessary and justified"?

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, can you call my side "pro-life" then, because it implies, to me, that I feel that a fetus is a life. Shall I call your side what you like, and you call my side what I like? Is that fair?

[Bliss Ninny]Whatever your answer is, I really like you, you Kiwi you! [/Bliss Ninny]

You're one of my favorite Mooters, and I hope you'll join in my thread on "why you believe what you believe", because you really think things thru - I'd love to hear your responses to some questions! AND - I'd love to hear some of your questions to those in the Hot Seat!

LOL. I have no business in what you decide to call your various bits of terminology. You can call it "swizzle-swazzle stick" for all I care.

And nope, don't mind sitting in the hot seat. Will have to wait for after exams though.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Rights carry responsibility.

The first right a person of either gender has in regard to abortion is the right to EMPLOY contraception.

Let's hear it for the exercise of that right pro-actively instead of abortion re-actively.

i agree

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I disagree with you here.

Fair enough Karly-pooh, but as I explained to Rian, I was just stating WHY I personally can't use the term, "pro-abortion". That's what it conjures up to ME, and I'd like to think that I'm not gonna go around advocating abortion left, right, and centre. Thus, when I state "pro-choice", I mean exactly that.

[azalea]

Originally Posted by Hasty Ent

I agree with this 100%. It is my choice whether or not to have an abortion. Fortunately, I've never been faced with that decision, but have friends who were confronted with it. They chose the course that was right for them at that time. However, that choice was not made FOR them, it was their decision to make.

However, when looking at this from a legal perspective, the issue is not what the woman is doing with her own body, but what the government is allowing doctors to do to a viable fetus. Certainly no one can stop someone from doing something to her own body. But looking at it from this standpoint, we're not looking at what the woman is doing, but what the doctor is doing.

The question is: should our society allow doctors to perform a procedure that terminates a viable fetus for just any reason? I can think of instances, that others have mentioned, where I could support the procedure being allowed. Inconvenience is not one of them.

[azalea]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i've never presented myself in any of those ways... or blamed anyone (you included ) of forcing their opinions upon me... the majority in our country determines the law... and if it conflicts with current law basically a two thirds majority is required to change things

at the present time a majority seem to be willing to allow abortion... if this changes, the laws will change

as i like to say... right and wrong are relative to the society we live in

But you can't mean this absolutely -- don't you think there are occasions in the past or present where the majority has thought in a way that truly was wrong? One that people have been throwing around is the Nazis. Don't you think that was wrong, even though the majority supported them?

[Hasty Ent]

Originally Posted by azalea

However, when looking at this from a legal perspective, the issue is not what the woman is doing with her own body, but what the government is allowing doctors to do to a viable fetus. Certainly no one can stop someone from doing something to her own body. But looking at it from this standpoint, we're not looking at what the woman is doing, but what the doctor is doing.

I don't understand what you're saying. Sorry, I'm not an attorney, and undoubtedly there's something I'm missing. However, I don't see how one can separate the woman from the act. It is not just between the doctor and the fetus, imo. There is a woman involved. Do all her rights evaporate once that egg is fertilized, so that the issue is strictly about what the doctor may or may not do to a fetus?

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

...at the present time a majority seem to be willing to allow abortion... if this changes, the laws will change

A majority of whom? Supreme Court Justices?

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

edit: I don't think abortion can be compared to slavery. If we do make abortion illegal, like we made slaverly illegal, can you imagine the surge of back-alley abortions? They're are extremely unsafe, and then you risk more than just the life of an unborn child, but also the mother, who is probably scared and alone.

I agree. I think it should be the same as smoking. Not illegal but you're advised not to.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

its certainly not nearly as black and white as you suggest here. theres still the arbitrary nature of when do you kill a person and when do you just put him in jail for life or less. if a guy has a better lawyer chances are he wont get the death penalty. even if his crime was much worse then the next guy. and once again it also comes down to if you think there is a difference between a grown self contained adult and a group of cells. some do some dont. and no one is more right then the next on that issue. you cant really ever have a "right" answer. thats the problem.

Sure, the punishment isn't exactly on target. Sometimes we make mistakes, too, and a punishment falls on someone innocent. Yet here, this is not about mistakes. Rather, it is legally saying that citizens have the right to commit murder for their own convenience. You seem to be saying, "because we've decided that one person gets the punishment of execution, we should be allowed to execute anyone we want!" By your reasoning, I can see it being possible for us not only to convict a murderer and execute him, but since we do that, we should be able to execute his lawyer too. And let's knock off half the audience too. Heck, we can kill anyone, because we can execute a murderer! You're saying "because we can't ever have a 'right' answer, let's throw out the whole concept of right!"

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, because with capital punishment, there is the idea of known consequences for a criminal act. It's not a matter of "when" with criminals that have done crimes to earn the death penalty; it's not like "well, at 1 month you can execute them, but at 9 months you can't." It's totally different. The fetus is NOT being killed because of any action it has chosen. Abortion is NOT a consequence that the fetus deserved; capital punishment is.







how about an innocent child killed by a stray bomb during a war we thought of as "necessary and justified"?

We declare wars against people usually because their governments have done evil, are threatening us, or for other reasons. We fight wars usually against aggressors. Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, World War 2, and others. They're usually caused by an aggressor coming against us. There still is a judgment taking place, just as in the court cases. There are wars that are wrong also, and never should have taken place. Sometimes wars are not justified. I would say that a war done purely for economic reasons-such as, everyone will be poorer if we don't go to war-aren't usually sufficient reasons. But you know, brownjenkins, it gets very hard to make general rules about wars. There are many intricate issues that go into them, and different wars are individual.

You pick such a complex issue it's very hard to argue with your point. In individual cases it might be possible to do so, but it's difficult to debate across the spectrum.

Here's one more thing that should be noted. The innocent child killed by the bomb was not a target. In this case, we are forced to kill innocents in order to kill the guilty, because otherwise we ourselves would be destroyed. We had little choice. We make every effort to avoid killing the innocent child. Accidents occur.

Abortions are not accidents. We are usually not taking every possible option to avoid killing the innocents. This is saying that in order to keep one person from having problems (social, economic, emotional) it is valid to kill a completely innocent person. That is different from killing a few innocents in order to get the dangerous guilty. It's quite a different issue.

[azalea]

Originally Posted by Hasty Ent

I don't understand what you're saying. Sorry, I'm not an attorney, and undoubtedly there's something I'm missing. However, I don't see how one can separate the woman from the act. It is not just between the doctor and the fetus, imo. There is a woman involved. Do all her rights evaporate once that egg is fertilized, so that the issue is strictly about what the doctor may or may not do to a fetus?

What I mean is that I think the legal issue isn't whether or not a woman chooses to end her pregnancy, it is whether or not it should be allowed for a doctor to end a viable pregnancy. The woman can do what she wants to.
I can't find the words to clarify any better, but to me it's a legal issue involving the government and the medical community, as well as the individual. Should it be available for everyone, no matter what the circumstance?

Again, it all goes back to whether or not one believes a fetus is a life, and if it is, does it have the same rights as the woman.

I happen to think that a viable fetus qualifies as a life.

Maybe someday soon there will be an option where the embryo can be frozen instead of thrown away, to be used by infertile couples.

I have known two* women who've had abortions, both of them due to the pregnancy being inconvenient at that point in their lives.
I of course have heard of instances where the reasons were much more complex (such as the mentally handicapped 12 year old in South America [?]who had been raped). It's a complex issue, but I think there are many cases where it's pretty clear.

Edit: make that three, I just remembered another one.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i've never presented myself in any of those ways... or blamed anyone (you included ) of forcing their opinions upon me...

Brownie - I edited my post - I didn't mean to imply that YOU used this argument

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

how about an innocent child killed by a stray bomb during a war we thought of as "necessary and justified"?

Hey, I was talking about capital punishment, and you threw in war, which is even MORE complex! What other complex issue can we add in to this thread?

To me, INTENT is the issue. To me, your scenario would be similar to when a fetus is accidentally/unintentionally killed during an operation that was deemed medically necessary, after serious evaluation, and had to be performed on the pregnant woman.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

LOL. I have no business in what you decide to call your various bits of terminology. You can call it "swizzle-swazzle stick" for all I care.

But you didn't answer my question ...

And nope, don't mind sitting in the hot seat. Will have to wait for after exams though

"Nobody expects the Spa ... um, ok, looking forward to you coming!" *innocent look*

[azalea]

Here's another complex issue:
Should the government allow something just because people want it?
For instance, there are a lot of adults who want having sex with a minor to be legal. But it's not (yet). Likewise, just because people want to be able to end their pregnancy isn't a good enough reason for it to be legal in every case, IMO. There are other factors that are more important (again, that is my opinion).

[Hasty Ent]

Originally Posted by azalea

Again, it all goes back to whether or not one believes a fetus is a life, and if it is, does it have the same rights as the woman.

That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? I don't believe a fetus is a life. Assuming it is at the stage where it would be viable outside of the womb, I believe the woman's rights supersede those of the fetus. I don't expect to change anyone's mind who believes otherwise, just as I know that I won't be changing my mind either. So what happens at the impasse? One group subjects the others to its belief system, I guess. I don't see any way to reach agreement on this, ever.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Hey, I was talking about capital punishment, and you threw in war, which is even MORE complex! What other complex issue can we add in to this thread?

To me, INTENT is the issue. To me, your scenario would be similar to when a fetus is accidentally/unintentionally killed during an operation that was deemed medically necessary, after serious evaluation, and had to be performed on the pregnant woman.

I agree intent is the issue. If a pregnant woman has an abortion then they would be deliberatly killing the fetus, whereas if they had a miscarriage it would be accidental.

[Rían]

(Hasty Ent - I answered your question over on the Gay/Les thread - I just wanted to let you know, because I didn't see a response from you - it's probably 3 pages back right now, and you can find it by searching for your name in posts by me)

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Originally Posted by Hasty Ent

That's it in a nutshell, isn't it? I don't believe a fetus is a life. Assuming it is at the stage where it would be viable outside of the womb, I believe the woman's rights supersede those of the fetus. I don't expect to change anyone's mind who believes otherwise, just as I know that I won't be changing my mind either. So what happens at the impasse? One group subjects the others to its belief system, I guess. I don't see any way to reach agreement on this, ever.

If you don't believe that a fetus is life, then would you say that a fetus is dead. As I said earlier does that make someone in a coma dead to?