Home - List All Discussions

The Viability Issue

how does it justify abortion?

by: cali1981

Yoda made a great point about viability in an old thread which I thought was worth starting a fresh discussion about.

Someone said that the viability issue was a tricky one, and Yoda responded with the following:

Comments?

reply from: pray4em

I don't know any thing about a viability issue, can someone please explain this. thanks

reply from: yoda

It's just a reference to an arbitrary dividing line that some proaborts draw between those unborn babies they consider worthy of having their lives protected (viable) and those they don't (non-viable). It makes no sense at all to me, but they clamor on about it as if it was a moral justification for killing very young babies in the womb.

reply from: NewPoster1

Comments?

Many others and myself consider pre-viability abortions to be acceptable because the fetus can only exist if it is physically inside of and physically attached to it's mother and as such, she has the right to do with it as she pleases. Many others and myself also consider post-viability abortions to be unacceptable because the fetus can exist physically outside of and physically unattached to it's mother and as such, she doesn't have the right to do with it as she pleases.

reply from: cali1981

That doesn't explain how viability and a moral right to life relate to one another.

the fetus can only exist if it is physically inside of and physically attached to it's mother..
AS SUCH...
she has the right to do with it as she pleases.

The second does not follow logically from the first. It amounts to saying that the child is physically dependent on me, therefore I may kill it, which does not make sense. You have to explain the "as such."

I'd also like to point out that viability is a function of science and of the tools that medicine has available to care for premature babies. Now babies can survive outside the womb at much younger ages than they could a hundred years ago, even though they aren't biologically any different than they have ever been. So would a 6-month-old unborn baby have a right to life now, but not a hundred years ago? Again, makes no sense.

reply from: yoda

And not a word about why helplessness and vulnerability make a baby less worthy of life? Not a syllable about why total dependence removes your moral right to life?

From where does this "right to do with it as she pleases" come? What gives a mother the moral right to kill a dependent baby?

And why (according to your theory) wouldn't a mother have a right to kill her born baby if there was no one around who was willing to take care of it? What's the moral difference?

reply from: pray4em

I see, this would be a sad world if no one cared if we lived or died. The person with the least needs the most. I would call the point of vability the point of despair, the thing with despair is we need to have faith that things will work out.

reply from: Tam

"viability" is an individual issue--whether or not an individual child is "viable" outside the womb at a given point has to do with several factors, and most certainly not all of those factors are yet known to us. As technology progresses, average age of viability becomes earlier and earlier--but the main point is that when people talk about the age of "viability" they are talking about the age at which A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE (usually, half) of children will live if removed from the womb. That is to say, some of those children were viable earlier, some won't be viable until later.

In other words, any law choosing an age of "viability" will necessarily exclude some viable children from its protection. So the whole concept of basing a law on "viability" is bogus.

reply from: scopia1982

Comments?

Many others and myself consider pre-viability abortions to be acceptable because the fetus can only exist if it is physically inside of and physically attached to it's mother and as such, she has the right to do with it as she pleases. Many others and myself also consider post-viability abortions to be unacceptable because the fetus can exist physically outside of and physically unattached to it's mother and as such, she doesn't have the right to do with it as she pleases.

Your arguement is moot and hold no wieght with me and many other prolifers. You say a fetus that cant survive without its mother and she has a right to do with it as she pleases? Well what about a newborn? It like a fetus cant survive without its mother. The same could be said for a toddlers etc. Just because it can survive outside the womb doesnt make it any less vunerable than one that cant, because when it comes down to the fact of the matter, it needs its mother in order to survive, if left unattended it will die.

reply from: pray4em

I think I get it now, thanks Tam

reply from: dadserna

If we base our decision on viability, then we could also consider some accident victims unviable. If they would die without medical intervention, they are the same as preborn babies, as far as viability is concerned.
Jay

reply from: cali1981

What excellent points, Tam. And I think people who say that they only support abortion prior to viability know these things, because you certainly don't see them protesting post-viability abortions or trying to get laws passed against them. It's a ridiculous and indefensible justification for a ridiculous and indefensible act.

reply from: NewPoster1

Comments?

Many others and myself consider pre-viability abortions to be acceptable because the fetus can only exist if it is physically inside of and physically attached to it's mother and as such, she has the right to do with it as she pleases. Many others and myself also consider post-viability abortions to be unacceptable because the fetus can exist physically outside of and physically unattached to it's mother and as such, she doesn't have the right to do with it as she pleases.

Your arguement is moot and hold no wieght with me and many other prolifers. You say a fetus that cant survive without its mother and she has a right to do with it as she pleases? Well what about a newborn? It like a fetus cant survive without its mother. The same could be said for a toddlers etc. Just because it can survive outside the womb doesnt make it any less vunerable than one that cant, because when it comes down to the fact of the matter, it needs its mother in order to survive, if left unattended it will die.

Your analogy is incorrect, a newborn/toddler can be cared for by virtually anyone else if the woman decides she doesn't want it. Furthermore it can actually exist outside of it's mother, whereas a pre-viability fetus must be physically inside of and physically attached to her in order to do so (even if it were carefully and safely removed it would die the moment the umbilical cord was disconnected).

reply from: NewPoster1

What excellent points, Tam. And I think people who say that they only support abortion prior to viability know these things, because you certainly don't see them protesting post-viability abortions or trying to get laws passed against them. It's a ridiculous and indefensible justification for a ridiculous and indefensible act.

I'm sorry, the last time I checked I had to be 18 or older in order to vote.

reply from: yoda

1. No, not in ALL cases. There are instances of women who don't have the support of anyone who would be willing to take her children just because she doesn't want them. But by your standard, that would justify her to kill them.

2. You still have not explained HOW an exclusive, total dependence upon a single person nullifies a person's MORAL right to life. HOW does that happen? WHAT is it about such dependence that removes your basic humanity?

reply from: yoda

I'm sorry, the last time I checked I had to be 18 or older in order to vote.
What a lame retort. It's vividly clear that cali was referring to proaborts such as yourself.

reply from: Tam

What excellent points, Tam. And I think people who say that they only support abortion prior to viability know these things, because you certainly don't see them protesting post-viability abortions or trying to get laws passed against them. It's a ridiculous and indefensible justification for a ridiculous and indefensible act.

I'm sorry, the last time I checked I had to be 18 or older in order to vote.

What is your point? If you are under 18 and think that your age excuses you from responsibility because you are not yet permitted to vote, that is ridiculous--you are responsible for your words and actions just as an adult is. If you are trying to make some random point about voting age in relation to abortion, you'll have to try harder. Are you confused about the issue of viability?

reply from: cali1981

I'm sorry, the last time I checked I had to be 18 or older in order to vote.
What a lame retort. It's vividly clear that cali was referring to proaborts such as yourself.

Yes, a lame retort indeed. I think it's time you explained why total helplessness/vulnerability/dependence make a baby less worthy of life; that's what we've been asking of proaborts all along.

This is an especially important question given that there is no way to determine the exact point of viability for a given child, and given that this undeterminable point could theoretically be earlier and earlier each day as medicine advances in its capabilities.

reply from: NewPoster1

What excellent points, Tam. And I think people who say that they only support abortion prior to viability know these things, because you certainly don't see them protesting post-viability abortions or trying to get laws passed against them. It's a ridiculous and indefensible justification for a ridiculous and indefensible act.

I'm sorry, the last time I checked I had to be 18 or older in order to vote.

What is your point? If you are under 18 and think that your age excuses you from responsibility because you are not yet permitted to vote, that is ridiculous--you are responsible for your words and actions just as an adult is. If you are trying to make some random point about voting age in relation to abortion, you'll have to try harder. Are you confused about the issue of viability?

I'm not attempting to make excuses. cali1981 seemed to imply that if I was truly against post-viability abortions that I would be protesting them or trying to get laws passed against them. I pointed out my age because without the ability to vote it is very difficult for me to "get laws passed against them", especially considering the fact that the 3 facilities in the country that perform post-viability abortions are all located in states other than the one where I live.

You and the others seem to be accusing me of somehow being complacent in the small percentage of abortions that take place post-viability. Perhaps instead of criticizing me you should clearly state what you believe would be the appropriate action for me to take in order to oppose them.

reply from: scopia1982

[

I'm not attempting to make excuses. cali1981 seemed to imply that if I was truly against post-viability abortions that I would be protesting them or trying to get laws passed against them. I pointed out my age because without the ability to vote it is very difficult for me to "get laws passed against them", especially considering the fact that the 3 facilities in the country that perform post-viability abortions are all located in states other than the one where I live.

You and the others seem to be accusing me of somehow being complacent in the small percentage of abortions that take place post-viability. Perhaps instead of criticizing me you should clearly state what you believe would be the appropriate action for me to take in order to oppose them.

NP, just because you are not old enough to vote doesnt mean that you cant advocate legislattion. You can write or send emails to the your state representives and the your congressman and senators. You can also write letters to the opinion section of your local newspaper. I think your age does make you naive on the henious nature of abortion and I dont think you know the emotional and physcial ramifications of abortion. It can cause sterility, numerious varities of emotional disorders, the most common being depression and Post Traumatic Stress disorder and many other physical consequences including death. If you dont think the fetus is a "person" than the devastating affects it has on the woman should be enough to deter any person from supporting it. The ultimate victim of course is the unborn child that is being killed, but the affects it has on the woman who has aborted is as bad as the death of the child if not worse. I know of where I speak, as I am a post aborted woman. I am sterile, because of the damage caused to my cervix by the abortion, which after a subsequent pregancy and delivery was torn to shreds. Had I not had an abortion I would have been able to recover from the difficult delievery with no long term consequnces. I also have PTSD and chronice clinical depression as the result of my abortion, which BTW I had no "choice" in, but that is a different story for a different time.. Abortion is not the great liberator for women that the proabortion lobby/industry would make it to be. They claim to "care" about women, but all they care about is $$ and they will do anything to get it, including forcing a woman by either coercion or in my case physical force if the woman is undecided or has changed her mind and doesnt want the abortion.

reply from: yoda

I doubt that many prolifers here have any such expectations of you.

MUCH prefered would be your answer to the question that cali and I have raised: Why does extreme vulnerability and dependence, such as is the case with a pre-viable fetus, take away one's moral right to life?

reply from: cali1981

I doubt that many prolifers here have any such expectations of you.

MUCH prefered would be your answer to the question that cali and I have raised: Why does extreme vulnerability and dependence, such as is the case with a pre-viable fetus, take away one's moral right to life?

Yes, that would definitely be much preferred.

Anyway, my point was not to say that pro-choicers against post-viability abortions should be out protesting or trying to get them changed. My point was to draw attention to the reason they don't do this: they know that making any sort of law based on viability is ridiculous since there's no way to determine it for sure and since it's different for each individual child.

Really my point was that it's meaningless to be against post-viability abortions if you won't - and can't - separate them legally from all other abortions. The fact that this can't be done just lends further support to the idea that this is a completely arbitrary way to decide who should get to live and who deserves to die.

BUT, as we have said five-ish times now, what we really want is an answer to the question: How or why does total helplessness/vulnerability/dependence make a baby less worthy of life?

reply from: Tam

Ok. The thing is, the situation is horrific. Millions upon millions of viable children have been killed since Roe and the killing continues, every day. The only way to determine whether an individual child will be viable outside the womb at a given point is by taking that child out of the womb. There are ages before which it is almost certain that the child will not survive, and ages after which it is almost certain that s/he will.

Here are some stats on survival of babies born at 21 weeks and beyond. It is generally thought at this time that babies under 21.5 weeks have a negligible chance of survival, as their lungs are so underdeveloped. http://www.pediatrics.wisc.edu/patientcare/preemies/anticipating.html

That month is crucial to the baby. At 21.5 weeks, very few children survive outside the womb. At 25.5 weeks, nearly all of them survive. I wonder how you feel about moms who are at 20 weeks and want to abort. Would you support a ruling requiring them to wait one month and abort via early delivery, to virtually guarantee that the child will live rather than guaranteeing his/her death?

Let's discuss your opposition to post-viability abortions. If a woman is pregnant and (for whatever reason) decides well into the pregnancy that she wants to have an abortion, what do you think should happen? Should she be able to have an abortion that is performed as an early delivery, with every effort made to save the life of her baby? Should she be legally forbidden to have the abortion? What should happen to her, and the abortionist, if she does procure an abortion illegally?

A pregnancy usually lasts 38 weeks. Most hospitals that perform abortions perform them through the 22nd week of pregnancy. Now, the rate of abortions after 21 weeks is *relatively* low--about one percent of all abortions. If you examine the statistics, you will see that nearly ALL of these abortions are ELECTIVE. That means that they are performed for one reason only: the wishes of the mother. Not a threat to her life--just a wish to kill her unborn child.

It is a very common misperception that late term abortions are primarily performed under desperate circumstances involving severe threats to the health of the mothers. Apparently, however, it is the other way around. For example, one source I reviewed (http://www.abortiontv.com/Methods/GeorgeTiller.htm) quoted a statistic that between 1998 and 2000, only ONE out of the 1168 post-viability abortions performed by Kansas abortionist George Tiller was performed during a medical emergency. There are many more interesting stats about Tiller's abortions there.

Remember: at this stage, an early delivery would mean the child would most likely be fine. Late-term abortions such as these are performed with one goal: to kill the unborn child. Were the goal merely to remove the child from the mother's body, an early delivery could be performed just as safely.

It is true that you can affect the laws around you even before you are of voting age. I wrote dozens of letters to lawmakers while I was in high school, about issues of interest to me. You can make your views known, as well. That's for starters. I guess my question to you is: if you truly do oppose the heinous killing of viable babies,

Here are stats about how many abortions are performed after 21 weeks (these are for the year 1995).
http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/us_stats_gestation_procedure.asp

Do you realize the magnitude of this? That's almost 9,000 babies that were literally tortured to death in 1995--and that's just the post-viability ones.

Abortion isn't a simple, painless procedure--for the mom and definitely not for the child. It basically involves being ripped into pieces. Just imagine for one minute what it would be like for you if the first major experience of your life was to be killed by being dismembered without anesthesia.

Think about the worldwide statistic of 46,000,000 abortions per year. If one percent of those are late-term abortions, that means half a million babies a year being tortured to death.

Is that something you might want to take action against? Even if you couldn't care less about the OTHER 45,540,000 babies being killed every year?

reply from: NewPoster1

Ok. The thing is, the situation is horrific. Millions upon millions of viable children have been killed since Roe and the killing continues, every day. The only way to determine whether an individual child will be viable outside the womb at a given point is by taking that child out of the womb. There are ages before which it is almost certain that the child will not survive, and ages after which it is almost certain that s/he will.

Here are some stats on survival of babies born at 21 weeks and beyond. It is generally thought at this time that babies under 21.5 weeks have a negligible chance of survival, as their lungs are so underdeveloped. http://www.pediatrics.wisc.edu/patientcare/preemies/anticipating.html

That month is crucial to the baby. At 21.5 weeks, very few children survive outside the womb. At 25.5 weeks, nearly all of them survive. I wonder how you feel about moms who are at 20 weeks and want to abort. Would you support a ruling requiring them to wait one month and abort via early delivery, to virtually guarantee that the child will live rather than guaranteeing his/her death?

Let's discuss your opposition to post-viability abortions. If a woman is pregnant and (for whatever reason) decides well into the pregnancy that she wants to have an abortion, what do you think should happen? Should she be able to have an abortion that is performed as an early delivery, with every effort made to save the life of her baby? Should she be legally forbidden to have the abortion? What should happen to her, and the abortionist, if she does procure an abortion illegally?

A pregnancy usually lasts 38 weeks. Most hospitals that perform abortions perform them through the 22nd week of pregnancy. Now, the rate of abortions after 21 weeks is *relatively* low--about one percent of all abortions. If you examine the statistics, you will see that nearly ALL of these abortions are ELECTIVE. That means that they are performed for one reason only: the wishes of the mother. Not a threat to her life--just a wish to kill her unborn child.

Prior to the 18th week it is impossible for the fetus to survive outside of it's mother so I would say that if a woman wants to have an abortion during this time period she should have the legal right to do so. After this point I believe the woman should still be legally permitted to have an abortion if the pregnancy threatens her life or health and an artificial early delivery is not possible or would be harmful to her. After 18 weeks I believe the woman should be able procure an artificial early delivery if not doing so is likely to result in her harming herself, being harmed by someone else, or seeking an illegal abortion. As far as illegal abortions go, if the coroner can certify that the fetus was 100% viable and it can be proven that the doctor, the woman, and anyone else involved knew this, than I would say that all parties involved should be able to be charged with a maximum of 1st degree manslaughter. If the coroner can't certify that the fetus was 100% viable or it can't be proven that the doctor, the woman, and anyone else involved knew it was viable, than I would say that all parties involved should only be able to be charged with a maximum of 3rd degree manslaughter. If the coroner can certify that the fetus was 100% unviable than I would say that all parties involved should not be able to be charged with anything.

reply from: bradensmommy

Ok. The thing is, the situation is horrific. Millions upon millions of viable children have been killed since Roe and the killing continues, every day. The only way to determine whether an individual child will be viable outside the womb at a given point is by taking that child out of the womb. There are ages before which it is almost certain that the child will not survive, and ages after which it is almost certain that s/he will.

Here are some stats on survival of babies born at 21 weeks and beyond. It is generally thought at this time that babies under 21.5 weeks have a negligible chance of survival, as their lungs are so underdeveloped. http://www.pediatrics.wisc.edu/patientcare/preemies/anticipating.html

That month is crucial to the baby. At 21.5 weeks, very few children survive outside the womb. At 25.5 weeks, nearly all of them survive. I wonder how you feel about moms who are at 20 weeks and want to abort. Would you support a ruling requiring them to wait one month and abort via early delivery, to virtually guarantee that the child will live rather than guaranteeing his/her death?

Let's discuss your opposition to post-viability abortions. If a woman is pregnant and (for whatever reason) decides well into the pregnancy that she wants to have an abortion, what do you think should happen? Should she be able to have an abortion that is performed as an early delivery, with every effort made to save the life of her baby? Should she be legally forbidden to have the abortion? What should happen to her, and the abortionist, if she does procure an abortion illegally?

A pregnancy usually lasts 38 weeks. Most hospitals that perform abortions perform them through the 22nd week of pregnancy. Now, the rate of abortions after 21 weeks is *relatively* low--about one percent of all abortions. If you examine the statistics, you will see that nearly ALL of these abortions are ELECTIVE. That means that they are performed for one reason only: the wishes of the mother. Not a threat to her life--just a wish to kill her unborn child.

Prior to the 18th week it is impossible for the fetus to survive outside of it's mother so I would say that if a woman wants to have an abortion during this time period she should have the legal right to do so. After this point I believe the woman should still be legally permitted to have an abortion if the pregnancy threatens her life or health and an artificial early delivery is not possible or would be harmful to her. After 18 weeks I believe the woman should be able procure an artificial early delivery if not doing so is likely to result in her harming herself, being harmed by someone else, or seeking an illegal abortion. As far as illegal abortions go, if the coroner can certify that the fetus was 100% viable and it can be proven that the doctor, the woman, and anyone else involved knew this, than I would say that all parties involved should be able to be charged with a maximum of 1st degree manslaughter. If the coroner can't certify that the fetus was 100% viable or it can't be proven that the doctor, the woman, and anyone else involved knew it was viable, than I would say that all parties involved should only be able to be charged with a maximum of 3rd degree manslaughter. If the coroner can certify that the fetus was 100% unviable than I would say that all parties involved should not be able to be charged with anything.

I hope you are able to afford a psychologist because I seriously think you weren't hugged and loved as a child. I can't believe you actually believe this jargon and have the balls to even type it. I just really don't have anything else to say but you need help.

reply from: yoda

All we're getting from you on this subject is "I WOULD SAY" and "I BELIEVE"..... but NOT WHY?????

What is the basis of this "feeling" that it's okay to kill little babies? Is it some sort of religion??

reply from: NewPoster1

It is a very common misperception that late term abortions are primarily performed under desperate circumstances involving severe threats to the health of the mothers. Apparently, however, it is the other way around. For example, one source I reviewed (http://www.abortiontv.com/Methods/GeorgeTiller.htm) quoted a statistic that between 1998 and 2000, only ONE out of the 1168 post-viability abortions performed by Kansas abortionist George Tiller was performed during a medical emergency. There are many more interesting stats about Tiller's abortions there.

Remember: at this stage, an early delivery would mean the child would most likely be fine. Late-term abortions such as these are performed with one goal: to kill the unborn child. Were the goal merely to remove the child from the mother's body, an early delivery could be performed just as safely.

It is true that you can affect the laws around you even before you are of voting age. I wrote dozens of letters to lawmakers while I was in high school, about issues of interest to me. You can make your views known, as well. That's for starters. I guess my question to you is: if you truly do oppose the heinous killing of viable babies,

Here are stats about how many abortions are performed after 21 weeks (these are for the year 1995).
http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/us_stats_gestation_procedure.asp

Do you realize the magnitude of this? That's almost 9,000 babies that were literally tortured to death in 1995--and that's just the post-viability ones.

Abortion isn't a simple, painless procedure--for the mom and definitely not for the child. It basically involves being ripped into pieces. Just imagine for one minute what it would be like for you if the first major experience of your life was to be killed by being dismembered without anesthesia.

Think about the worldwide statistic of 46,000,000 abortions per year. If one percent of those are late-term abortions, that means half a million babies a year being tortured to death.

Is that something you might want to take action against? Even if you couldn't care less about the OTHER 45,540,000 babies being killed every year?

I agree with you 100% that the several-thousand post-viability abortions that occur each year are completely unacceptable. But once again, I'm not exactly sure what you expect me to do about.

Let's say, hypothetically, that I lived in Kansas and was old enough to vote in an election. Most likely I would have to choose between a Democratic candidate who supports abortion until the 22nd week and a Republican candidate who opposes all abortions. Do you see the problem? There's absolutely no middle ground because the 2 political parties are completely polarized. What it comes down to is do I support the candidate who agrees with me about the acceptability of the 99% of abortions that are pre-viable or do I support the candidate who agrees with me about the unacceptability of the 1% of abortions that are post-viable. While I would support outlawing the 1% of abortions that are post-viable, I'm not going to do so it if it means the 99% of abortions that are pre-viable will be outlawed as well.

reply from: NewPoster1

As a matter of fact I wasn't. What's your point? I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand.

reply from: cali1981

NP, you still haven't answered the one question we've been asking all along.

Why does extreme vulnerability and dependence, such as is the case with a pre-viable fetus, take away one's moral right to life?

Or, How or why does total helplessness/vulnerability/dependence make a baby less worthy of life?

reply from: bradensmommy

As a matter of fact I wasn't. What's your point? I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand.

My point is is that I can tell you weren't. Your views and beliefs are just bizarre.

reply from: NewPoster1

If a fetus can only exist by being physically inside of and physically attached to it's mother, than any rights it has are given at her discretion.

The woman's right to bodily autonomy outweighs the rights of any being that can only exist by being physically inside of and physically attached to her.

reply from: yoda

By what moral principle does natural reproduction give a mother the right to kill her unborn baby?

WHY? Why does this so called "bodily autonomy" have more moral weight (to you) than the very life of the baby?

Why is life so very cheap to you?

reply from: bradensmommy

I'm telling you Yoda, he/she has serious issues

reply from: galen

I have to wonder why one person's selfish motives should outweigh anyones elses....NP?

Both parties in your posts (mom and child) want to live. That is a desire of any living organism.. no matter what level on the scale of sentient beings you put it on. we all have the drive to live and reproduce... so i'll throw the argument right back at you... why should the mom's wish supercede the wish of the child .

Mary
I'll follow you into the dark.

reply from: yoda

I'm beginning to think you're right. He/she ignores every question I ask, and continues to tell us how lowly he/she values life, as if that were a moral argument.

It's as if someone thought they were God, and could throw lives away on a whim.

reply from: Tam

Not several thousand. I estimated half a million. Even if I'm WAY, WAY off the mark, we're talking about approximately a quarter million children. That's two hundred and fifty thousand. "Several" doesn't cut it at all.

Yes. The problem in that case is that you, like most Americans, would make the awful mistake of voting for someone in the egregiously corrupt superparty known as, depending on your point of view, the Democrats or the Republicans, but which is actually one big corrupt group of jerks who are running the show and stacking the deck in their own favor. I would advise you to consider refusing to vote for Demopublicans at all. I have NEVER voted for a Dem or a Rep and never intend to. They're playing a crooked game, and I won't support it.

In other words, you'd rather see a million babies a year die--some of those deaths being, in your eyes, murder--than see those babies live because some of them would inconvenience their mothers.

reply from: cali1981

WHY?

Please show the chain of logic you used to get from "If a fetus can only exist by being physically inside of and physically attached to its mother" to "then any rights it has are given at her discretion."

You should also know that there is no such thing as a "right to bodily autonomy." The Constitution certainly doesn't recognize one.

reply from: dadserna

By new poster
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a fetus can only exist by being physically inside of and physically attached to it's mother, than any rights it has are given at her discretion.

The woman's right to bodily autonomy outweighs the rights of any being that can only exist by being physically inside of and physically attached to her.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait a minute. The baby still exists, even if you kill it. It does not vanish into thin air. You should have said the baby can only live by being physically inside of and attached to it's mother. However your aguement still does not hold water. Let's say a woman is travelling thru the desert with her child. If she decides she doesn't want to be burdened with the responsibility of motherhood she cannot just leave her on the side of the road. Without her the child would die. Even outside the womb the child is completely dependent on the mother. The mother has a moral and legal responsibility for the safety of the child. On her own this child would be no more "VIABLE" than a 10 wk old fetus. Yet she has a right to life.
Please give a well thought out answer to the question that Yoda and Cali and everyone else have been asking.
How does extreme vulnerability remove someone's right to live?
Jay

reply from: dadserna

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a very common misperception that late term abortions are primarily performed under desperate circumstances involving severe threats to the health of the mothers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This misperception is not by accident. It has been perpetuated by the abortion lobby for years. Glad to see you learned that it is BULL. Hopefully you will learn that you have been influence by more of their lies and propaganda. Have you even considered this possibility?
Jay

reply from: NewPoster1

Let's say, hypothetically, that there's a person who has advanced kidney failure and they'll die within days if they can't get a transplant. It's determined that one of their relatives is a perfect match, but for what ever reason this person is unwilling to donate one of their kidneys.

Are you saying that since the so-called "right to life" outweighs all other rights, that the hypothetical person should be legally compelled to donate one of their kidneys, even if they don't wish to do so?

reply from: pray4em

concernedparent,
All I can say is I hope to see Senior member under your name one day. Thanks for being here.

reply from: Tam

Wait, Jay, that was I who said that, not NP. I agree--it is not by accident. It is Bull!

reply from: Tam

Absolutely not. If a relative of mine needs a kidney and I am the only match in the world, that is still not reason enough to force me to undergo unwanted surgery and forcibly remove a body organ from me! That is a completely ridiculous comparison to abortion--in which a human being is grossly violated in a manner much worse than having an organ removed--by having his/her entire body destroyed! Please tell me you don't think forcibly removing someone's vital organ is LESS similar to forcibly destroying someone's entire body than to supporting a legal penalty for someone who would perpetrate that destruction.

reply from: NewPoster1

Absolutely not. If a relative of mine needs a kidney and I am the only match in the world, that is still not reason enough to force me to undergo unwanted surgery and forcibly remove a body organ from me! That is a completely ridiculous comparison to abortion--in which a human being is grossly violated in a manner much worse than having an organ removed--by having his/her entire body destroyed! Please tell me you don't think forcibly removing someone's vital organ is LESS similar to forcibly destroying someone's entire body than to supporting a legal penalty for someone who would perpetrate that destruction.

Your position is illogical and contradictory.

If you truly believe that the "right to life" outweighs all other rights, including "bodily autonomy", than surely the person (who needs a kidney)'s right to life outweighs the person (who would lose a kidney)'s right to bodily autonomy. If you believe a woman should be required to use her uterus against her will to preserve the life of a fetus than why shouldn't a person with an unnecessary 2nd kidney be required to donate it against their will in order to preserve the life of another person?

My comparison is completely valid, in both situations in order for one being to live (fetus/person in need of kidney) someone else's body (mother/person with spare kidney) must be used in a manner that they don't want it to.

reply from: Tam

Absolutely not. If a relative of mine needs a kidney and I am the only match in the world, that is still not reason enough to force me to undergo unwanted surgery and forcibly remove a body organ from me! That is a completely ridiculous comparison to abortion--in which a human being is grossly violated in a manner much worse than having an organ removed--by having his/her entire body destroyed! Please tell me you don't think forcibly removing someone's vital organ is LESS similar to forcibly destroying someone's entire body than to supporting a legal penalty for someone who would perpetrate that destruction.

Your position is illogical and contradictory.

If you truly believe that the "right to life" outweighs all other rights, including "bodily autonomy", than surely the person (who needs a kidney)'s right to life outweighs the person (who would lose a kidney)'s right to bodily autonomy. If you believe a woman should be required to use her uterus against her will to preserve the life of a fetus than why shouldn't a person with an unnecessary 2nd kidney be required to donate it against their will in order to preserve the life of another person?

My comparison is completely valid, in both situations in order for one being to live (fetus/person in need of kidney) someone else's body (mother/person with spare kidney) must be used in a manner that they don't want it to.

You are talking about a body organ as though it's a spare pencil. You are talking about FORCIBLE SURGERY on someone's body. And you think that it is illogical to compare that to FORCIBLE SURGICAL DESTRUCTION of someone's body.

Begin at the beginning. Tell me, in your view, what happens in an abortion--not the specific details of a particular procedure, but the gist of what happens.

reply from: NewPoster1

Absolutely not. If a relative of mine needs a kidney and I am the only match in the world, that is still not reason enough to force me to undergo unwanted surgery and forcibly remove a body organ from me! That is a completely ridiculous comparison to abortion--in which a human being is grossly violated in a manner much worse than having an organ removed--by having his/her entire body destroyed! Please tell me you don't think forcibly removing someone's vital organ is LESS similar to forcibly destroying someone's entire body than to supporting a legal penalty for someone who would perpetrate that destruction.

Your position is illogical and contradictory.

If you truly believe that the "right to life" outweighs all other rights, including "bodily autonomy", than surely the person (who needs a kidney)'s right to life outweighs the person (who would lose a kidney)'s right to bodily autonomy. If you believe a woman should be required to use her uterus against her will to preserve the life of a fetus than why shouldn't a person with an unnecessary 2nd kidney be required to donate it against their will in order to preserve the life of another person?

My comparison is completely valid, in both situations in order for one being to live (fetus/person in need of kidney) someone else's body (mother/person with spare kidney) must be used in a manner that they don't want it to.

You are talking about a body organ as though it's a spare pencil. You are talking about FORCIBLE SURGERY on someone's body. And you think that it is illogical to compare that to FORCIBLE SURGICAL DESTRUCTION of someone's body.

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I am not comparing the fetus to the kidney, I'm comparing the fetus to the person who need's a kidney transplant and I'm comparing the forcible use of the unwilling mother's uterus to the forcible donation of the unwilling donor's kidney.

You seem to dislike the prospect of forcible surgery. Tell me, if there's a problem during delivery that makes it necessary to perform a ceasarian section in order to save the fetus, do you think that the woman should be legally required to have one even if she doesn't wish to do so?

reply from: yoda

The "so-called right to life" is a moral concept that is passive in nature, not aggressive. It means that no one has the moral right to intentionally TAKE that innocent life, not that any living person has the moral right to force another to donate a body part to save his/her life.

Pregnancy is not an aggressive act by the fetus. The fetus is totally passive, and is as much a "victim of nature", so to speak, as is the woman who finds herself unwilling pregnant. It is nature (in the formo of the placenta), not the fetus, that is taking nourishment and shelter from the mother. Therefore the passive moral right to life is absolutely due to every fetus, save those whose existence threatens the very life of the mother. (Even then it is still due every consideration involved in it's removal.)

So your comparison fails due to the contrast between the passive and aggressive nature of the two situations.

reply from: Tam

Absolutely not. If a relative of mine needs a kidney and I am the only match in the world, that is still not reason enough to force me to undergo unwanted surgery and forcibly remove a body organ from me! That is a completely ridiculous comparison to abortion--in which a human being is grossly violated in a manner much worse than having an organ removed--by having his/her entire body destroyed! Please tell me you don't think forcibly removing someone's vital organ is LESS similar to forcibly destroying someone's entire body than to supporting a legal penalty for someone who would perpetrate that destruction.

Your position is illogical and contradictory.

If you truly believe that the "right to life" outweighs all other rights, including "bodily autonomy", than surely the person (who needs a kidney)'s right to life outweighs the person (who would lose a kidney)'s right to bodily autonomy. If you believe a woman should be required to use her uterus against her will to preserve the life of a fetus than why shouldn't a person with an unnecessary 2nd kidney be required to donate it against their will in order to preserve the life of another person?

My comparison is completely valid, in both situations in order for one being to live (fetus/person in need of kidney) someone else's body (mother/person with spare kidney) must be used in a manner that they don't want it to.

You are talking about a body organ as though it's a spare pencil. You are talking about FORCIBLE SURGERY on someone's body. And you think that it is illogical to compare that to FORCIBLE SURGICAL DESTRUCTION of someone's body.

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I am not comparing the fetus to the kidney, I'm comparing the fetus to the person who need's a kidney transplant and I'm comparing the forcible use of the unwilling mother's uterus to the forcible donation of the unwilling donor's kidney.

You seem to dislike the prospect of forcible surgery. Tell me, if there's a problem during delivery that makes it necessary to perform a ceasarian section in order to save the fetus, do you think that the woman should be legally required to have one even if she doesn't wish to do so?

No, you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not comparing the fetus to the kidney, either! Not whatsoever. I'm comparing a human being who is violated for a kidney to a human being who is violated and killed for the convenience of his/her mother. In other words, to you the unborn child is analagous to the person who NEEDS a kidney; to me the unborn child is more analagous to the person who HAS a kidney and is VIOLATED for the sake of another. See, you are thinking that pregnancy is some huge violation of the woman. It is not. What is a huge violation is being torn limb from limb.

As for your issue about the c-section, I don't feel it should be legal for the government to force any medical treatment of any kind on any person, ever, period. So, in that case, no, I would say the mother has the right to refuse a c-section. If she did that for a reason that consisted of her moral opposition to surgery and some conviction that the baby would be ok in some other way, or whatever, that'd be a more moral reason to me compared with some woman who had no problem with surgery in general but just didn't give a damn about her kid and didn't want to be inconvenienced or something.

But we're not talking about emergency surgery to save a life. We're talking about elective surgery to END a life.

reply from: NewPoster1

Absolutely not. If a relative of mine needs a kidney and I am the only match in the world, that is still not reason enough to force me to undergo unwanted surgery and forcibly remove a body organ from me! That is a completely ridiculous comparison to abortion--in which a human being is grossly violated in a manner much worse than having an organ removed--by having his/her entire body destroyed! Please tell me you don't think forcibly removing someone's vital organ is LESS similar to forcibly destroying someone's entire body than to supporting a legal penalty for someone who would perpetrate that destruction.

Your position is illogical and contradictory.

If you truly believe that the "right to life" outweighs all other rights, including "bodily autonomy", than surely the person (who needs a kidney)'s right to life outweighs the person (who would lose a kidney)'s right to bodily autonomy. If you believe a woman should be required to use her uterus against her will to preserve the life of a fetus than why shouldn't a person with an unnecessary 2nd kidney be required to donate it against their will in order to preserve the life of another person?

My comparison is completely valid, in both situations in order for one being to live (fetus/person in need of kidney) someone else's body (mother/person with spare kidney) must be used in a manner that they don't want it to.

You are talking about a body organ as though it's a spare pencil. You are talking about FORCIBLE SURGERY on someone's body. And you think that it is illogical to compare that to FORCIBLE SURGICAL DESTRUCTION of someone's body.

The person who would be forced to donate their kidney could still have a full healthy life without it and they would completely recover from the surgery within a few weeks. Why should their lifestyle be more important than the person who needs a kidney's life?

reply from: Tam

Absolutely not. If a relative of mine needs a kidney and I am the only match in the world, that is still not reason enough to force me to undergo unwanted surgery and forcibly remove a body organ from me! That is a completely ridiculous comparison to abortion--in which a human being is grossly violated in a manner much worse than having an organ removed--by having his/her entire body destroyed! Please tell me you don't think forcibly removing someone's vital organ is LESS similar to forcibly destroying someone's entire body than to supporting a legal penalty for someone who would perpetrate that destruction.

Your position is illogical and contradictory.

If you truly believe that the "right to life" outweighs all other rights, including "bodily autonomy", than surely the person (who needs a kidney)'s right to life outweighs the person (who would lose a kidney)'s right to bodily autonomy. If you believe a woman should be required to use her uterus against her will to preserve the life of a fetus than why shouldn't a person with an unnecessary 2nd kidney be required to donate it against their will in order to preserve the life of another person?

My comparison is completely valid, in both situations in order for one being to live (fetus/person in need of kidney) someone else's body (mother/person with spare kidney) must be used in a manner that they don't want it to.

You are talking about a body organ as though it's a spare pencil. You are talking about FORCIBLE SURGERY on someone's body. And you think that it is illogical to compare that to FORCIBLE SURGICAL DESTRUCTION of someone's body.

The person who would be forced to donate their kidney could still have a full healthy life without it and they would completely recover from the surgery within a few weeks. Why should their lifestyle be more important than the person who needs a kidney's life?

Tell me, are you arguing that a person who needs a kidney SHOULD be able to arrange for the government to forcibly surgically remove someone else's kidney? If not, then we agree, and since I have already stated that it is a BS analogy for abortion in that the supposed victim in your scenario is the perpetrator of violence in mine, don't you think we should move on to talking about the ACTUAL issue, which is to say, ABORTION?

Why don't you answer my question about what happens in an abortion?

reply from: NewPoster1

The "so-called right to life" is a moral concept that is passive in nature, not aggressive. It means that no one has the moral right to intentionally TAKE that innocent life, not that any living person has the moral right to force another to donate a body part to save his/her life.

Pregnancy is not an aggressive act by the fetus. The fetus is totally passive, and is as much a "victim of nature", so to speak, as is the woman who finds herself unwilling pregnant. It is nature (in the formo of the placenta), not the fetus, that is taking nourishment and shelter from the mother. Therefore the passive moral right to life is absolutely due to every fetus, save those whose existence threatens the very life of the mother. (Even then it is still due every consideration involved in it's removal.)

So your comparison fails due to the contrast between the passive and aggressive nature of the two situations.

The person (with kidney failure)'s need of an organ is most definately not aggresive. It's not as though they intentionally caused them to fail so they could take one from somebody else.

You're going to have to try harder than that to discredit my comparison. You anti-choicers always boast that the right to life outweighs all other rights, without exception.

reply from: Tam

You don't think forcing someone else to undergo unwanted surgery is aggressive?

reply from: NewPoster1

Absolutely not. If a relative of mine needs a kidney and I am the only match in the world, that is still not reason enough to force me to undergo unwanted surgery and forcibly remove a body organ from me! That is a completely ridiculous comparison to abortion--in which a human being is grossly violated in a manner much worse than having an organ removed--by having his/her entire body destroyed! Please tell me you don't think forcibly removing someone's vital organ is LESS similar to forcibly destroying someone's entire body than to supporting a legal penalty for someone who would perpetrate that destruction.

Your position is illogical and contradictory.

If you truly believe that the "right to life" outweighs all other rights, including "bodily autonomy", than surely the person (who needs a kidney)'s right to life outweighs the person (who would lose a kidney)'s right to bodily autonomy. If you believe a woman should be required to use her uterus against her will to preserve the life of a fetus than why shouldn't a person with an unnecessary 2nd kidney be required to donate it against their will in order to preserve the life of another person?

My comparison is completely valid, in both situations in order for one being to live (fetus/person in need of kidney) someone else's body (mother/person with spare kidney) must be used in a manner that they don't want it to.

You are talking about a body organ as though it's a spare pencil. You are talking about FORCIBLE SURGERY on someone's body. And you think that it is illogical to compare that to FORCIBLE SURGICAL DESTRUCTION of someone's body.

The person who would be forced to donate their kidney could still have a full healthy life without it and they would completely recover from the surgery within a few weeks. Why should their lifestyle be more important than the person who needs a kidney's life?

Tell me, are you arguing that a person who needs a kidney SHOULD be able to arrange for the government to forcibly surgically remove someone else's kidney? If not, then we agree, and since I have already stated that it is a BS analogy for abortion in that the supposed victim in your scenario is the perpetrator of violence in mine, don't you think we should move on to talking about the ACTUAL issue, which is to say, ABORTION?

Why don't you answer my question about what happens in an abortion?

If the right to life outweighs all other rights, than it must be absolute. If a woman is charged with a crime for putting her lifestyle ahead of the fetus's life, than a person (with a spare kidney) must also be charged with a crime for putting their lifestyle ahead of the person (who needs a kidney)'s life.

Woman A decides that she doesn't want to continue her pregnancy, so she pays doctor B to terminate it. The fetus is either destroyed during the extraction process or immediately after the umbilical cord is severed.

reply from: NewPoster1

It's no more aggressive than forcing someone to undergo an unwanted pregnancy.

Especially considering that 1 out of 4 full-term pregnancies end in a surgical delivery.

reply from: Tam

You think in order to protect the right to life of an unborn baby (even a VIABLE one) it is necessary to force everyone to donate organs? You ACTUALLY think this? You think that a law protecting the life of a child starting from when the child existed would be, in court, said to constitute precedent for squads of EMTs to capture, sedate, and forcibly remove body organs from innocent people? I mean, I don't believe you could possibly think any court would do that! Do you really think so? If you were the lawyer trying to GET the court to do that, how would you argue?? That giving birth to a baby you conceived is the equivalent of being captured, sedated, and operated on against your will?! I am not sure we are living on the same plane of reality.

reply from: Tam

It's no more aggressive than forcing someone to undergo an unwanted pregnancy.

Especially considering that 1 out of 4 full-term pregnancies end in a surgical delivery.

Ok, I see the problem. You are thinking that if a woman is not given free rein to kill her unborn children, that is the same as if someone captured, sedated, raped, impregnated, and kept captive that woman for nine months, bound, and forced her to give birth? Is THAT what you're suggesting? That a woman who is pregnant for the reason of having consentual sex is the equivalent of a woman who has been kidnapped, sedated, and raped?

reply from: yoda

Never said he/she was aggressive, did I? But what IS aggressive is YOUR SUGGESTION to FORCE another human to donate their organ! You cannot passively remove someone's organs against their wishes!!

Indeed we do. If you already have life, you are morally entitled NOT to be killed (unless your existence within your mother threatens her life). But that is a PASSIVE, not an aggressive right!

reply from: Tam

NP, I think first of all that you should avoid painting all prolifers with the same broad brush. Let me tell you what I believe. I believe it is immoral to initiate an act of violence against another living being. Does that help you understand why I would oppose BOTH abortion (an act of extreme violence against an unborn baby) AND the forcible surgical removal of organs (an act of assault against someone)? Everyone has the right to continue to live free of attack. No one has the right to attack someone else. I hope that helps clear up what I think. I can speak only for myself. I am not necessarily the average prolifer. I am sort of a hippie anarchist environmentalist vegetarian. Although today I think I am leaning a bit towards socialism. By this I mean that while I still feel wholeheartedly that the individual right to live free of attack is absolute, the right to hold property is not. But I digress.

reply from: yoda

What a strange comparison. Extending legal protection from being electively killed is in no way comprable to extending legal sanctions for electively killing an innocent person.

IOW, telling you not to kill an innocent person is not in the same category as you actually killing that person, is it?

reply from: yoda

It seems odd to have to be arguing that saving an innocent life is not as bad as taking an innocent life.

Isn't that basic common sense?

reply from: cali1981

NP - Organ donation is an extreme measure to save someone's life. Allowing a pregnancy to continue is not an extreme measure to save someone's life, since gestation is a completely natural and required thing for everyone to exist.

The right to life means the right NOT TO BE KILLED.

The passive-aggressive distinction is important. If someone is INTENTIONALLY DEPRIVED of the UNIVERSAL REQUIREMENTS for life, such as food, water, or the opportunity to gestate, that equates with KILLING THE PERSON.

Depriving someone of a NON-UNIVERSAL and EXTREME requirement for life certainly may have a regrettable outcome, but it does NOT equate with KILLING THE PERSON.

Put another way, DONATING AN ORGAN to someone to save their life is NOT the same as REFRAINING FROM KILLING a child in his/her mother's womb.

That is why we oppose abortion but not a person's right to refuse to donate an organ.

It is perfectly consistent to oppose depriving people of the universal requirements for life but NOT to oppose depriving people of extreme and individualized requirements for life.

It's time you acknowledged that distinction so that we can get on with the discussion of abortion here. Pro-life people oppose the INTENTIONAL taking of innocent life, so the pro-life position would not require any particular position on organ donation. End of story.

reply from: cali1981

Let's get this straight right now. No one can "force" someone to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. I'm going to quote Tam here:

Refraining from stopping a completely natural process that is already underway can in no way be constrained as AGGRESSIVE.

reply from: yoda

Isn't it strange to need to explain this simple concept, cali?

reply from: Tam

Yeah, great points guys!

reply from: cali1981

Yes; how very strange. I was just thinking about that.

reply from: dignitarian

To "NewPoster1"

Just how is it again that viability is a reasonable criterion for granting the right to life? After hearing this line of "thinking" for the last 35 years I've never seen a reasoned basis for it, at least not anything worthy of weighing the value of human life.

Instead; I offer the following premise, question, and conclusion I believe any reasonable person can understand. (even if they are not old enough to vote)

Premise:

All Persons are Beings of inestimable worth.

Question:

Should we permit an unnecessary harm to a particular Being of Human Origin just because we cannot clearly see for sure whether this Being of Human Origin is a Person or not?

Conclusion:

In the event we are not sure whether a particular Being of Human Origin is a Person, WE MUST ASSUME THAT IT IS, or else we run the risk of causing unnecessary harm to a Being of inestimable worth.

If I am missing an item of greater importance here, please tell me what it is.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: yoda

Yeah, dig, you're missing the "loophole" that all proaborts insist upon which allows them to kill babies with impugnity before birth. It could be anything, sneering at their small size, or lack of development, lamenting their lack of communication skills, bemoaning their unprovable mental abilities and/or undetectable personalities, their lack of independence and self-reliance, or even something as bizarre as claiming they are "not alive", "not human being", or "not people". They aren't too picky, they'll go for any old rationalization or flimsy excuse to give them a thin veil of confusion as they go about their bloody business. Other than that, your analysis is spot on.

reply from: Tam

I concur with Yoda. (and coincide )

reply from: dadserna

Dear NP
I think we are all still waiting for an answer. Why does extreme vulnerability negate someones right to life? Eventually you will run out of diversions. Your last kidney thing was a real silly and unnatural stretch of the imagination. You could save yourself some time and simply answer the question.
Thanks
Jay

reply from: bradensmommy

It cracks me up when y'all stump pro-choicers! Its funny that when you do they don't answer for quite a few days then come up with a smart-alec remark or put us down.

reply from: yoda

There's an old saying among lawyers: When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. When the law is on yours side, pound on the law. When nothing is on your side, pound on the table. Smart alec put-downs are the equivilent of pounding on the table.

reply from: dignitarian

Yodavater:

You know me too well.

Of course, this is just an invitation for NewPoster1 (or any pro-choicer) to seriously propose this "loophole" so I can tie it in knot.

As you can see, I am still waiting.

Dig

reply from: yoda

You and Tam both are waiting patiently, tapping your fingers/toes. Make a little music while you do that, okay?

reply from: Sigma

Using a premise that is purely opinion and is unprovable should not be the foundation of an argument. This premise is not likely to be accepted by anyone that does not already accept your conclusion and therefore is useless for your purpose.

reply from: Sigma

I'm uncertain who said that and in what context.

If you are referring to equating requiring women to continue their pregnancies to requiring the donation of organs to those who need them to live, I will respond in this way:

If your justification for requiring the continuation of pregnancy is that life is the highest ideal, then it is a logical continuation of this to require the donation of organs (if one can spare them) in order to save another. The justification for both is to save another by requiring the sacrifice of ones own self.

Yours truly,
Captain Obvious

reply from: Tam

That sums up perfectly the reason this "violinist" analogy is ludicrous. (I've always wondered--why a violinist? Is it because the author considers a violinist to contribute nothing of tangible value to society?)

reply from: Sigma

concernedparent,

So, then, it seems you would support the woman disconnecting herself from the fetus so long as she does not actively kill it? The fetus would certainly die in the time-frame the majority of abortions are performed. This is the logical consequence of the view provided. Then, it is not the fact that the fetus will die that you oppose abortion, it is the fact that the fetus is killed that bothers you.

I’m surprised, to say the least, that a pro-life person would attempt to make the argument that the right to bodily integrity is greater than other’s right to life.

Putting aside the debate over consent, pregnancy does violate a woman’s bodily integrity. Her body is being used by someone or something other than herself, changes to her body are being instigated against her desire when it is possible to stop but you wish to make a law to prevent her from stopping these changes. Now you wish to say that one does have a right to bodily integrity. You may think that the fetus’s supposed ‘right to life’ is greater than this, but you do admit the woman has a right that you wish to violate.

Perhaps now you see why pro-choice people view your philosophy with horror and disgust.

I have no problem with using this analogy, because the result is the same.

If one is absolutely directly responsible for the failure of another’s organs I would never think it is justified to require or force the perpetrator to donate their organs to save that other.

Let me repeat myself so it is perfectly clear where I stand. It is never justified to use the law to force or require one to allow the use of their physical body in this way. Never. Whether one is the direct cause of the situation or not.

If you wish to use this as an analogy for abortion, feel free. I do not feel it is justified to use the law to require or force the woman to allow the use of her body when she does not wish to in either situation. Am I to understand you believe the law should require or force people in general to donate organs if they cause the situation in question? This is absolutely against what America stands for, and would violate the spirit and letter of the Constitution. I am glad you find them analogous, and look forward to you converting to the pro-choice view

Tam,

I’m sorry, I don’t see why you believe the Violinist Argument is ludicrous.

Indeed, why a violinist? I suppose, why not a violinist? I doubt it is for the reason you suggest. For the analogy to work, it would have to be an adult with unquestionably full rights. A violinist was chosen, I suppose, to have a fan group that would have the devotion to do what was done, is intelligent and has nothing about what he or she does that cause the reader to think less of them (as, perhaps, a menial job might).

reply from: Tam

I’m sorry, I don’t see why you believe the Violinist Argument is ludicrous.

Because in one case you are talking about kidnapping and subjecting to unnecessary surgery a person who has no connection to some random other person. In the other case, you are talking about subjecting to death a person who has every right to expect the other person to care for him/her. The ONLY thing that is similar to pregnancy is the concept of PHYSICAL DEPENDENCY on another human being. There are many analogies that could be made in which one person is physically dependent upon another, but none of them necessarily has, simply by virtue of that one similarity, relevance to the abortion issue.

I agree about not being forced to support a violinist. But your analogy would only have some relevance if the unborn child had kidnapped his/her mother and rendered her immobile with no function than to support his/her life. Neither of those is remotely the case.

reply from: NewPoster1

Once again, if there's a problem during delivery that necessitates a ceasarian section in order to save the fetus do you believe that the woman should be forced to undergo the surgery, even if she doesn't want to do so?

reply from: NewPoster1

Let's get this straight right now. No one can "force" someone to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. I'm going to quote Tam here:

Refraining from stopping a completely natural process that is already underway can in no way be constrained as AGGRESSIVE.

I'm quite tired of hearing this ridiculous bladder analogy, it is written under the incorrect assumption that force can only be achieved through physical means. Force can be achieved physically, through intimidation, or by imposing your views on others.

If you advocate for a law against abortion, you are imposing your views on others, thus you are forcing women to use their bodies to do something that is being done against their will.

reply from: NewPoster1

I never said that the person should be captured, sedated, and operated on against their will. I merely stated that if they put their lifestyle ahead of the other person's life and refused to donate their organ, that they should be subject to the same penalty as a woman who has an abortion.

reply from: Tam

Once again, if there's a problem during delivery that necessitates a ceasarian section in order to save the fetus do you believe that the woman should be forced to undergo the surgery, even if she doesn't want to do so?

Already answered this.

reply from: Tam

That is a bunch of bull, NP. I cannot FORCE my "views" onto you, I can merely EXPRESS my views. FORCING someone to do something means FORCING the person to do the thing. It doesn't mean making it difficult for the person to do some other thing, it means FORCING THE PERSON TO DO THE THING.

When you are talking about "force through intimidation" you mean COERCION. When you talk about expressing views to others, you mean PERSUASION. If I persuade you of something, I have not FORCED you in any way. As for intimidation, I am not sure what your point is.

The bladder analogy is excellent. You've done nothing to diminish it in the least, and have failed to answer the Do you think you'd like it better if it were the bladder of a violinist?

Do you understand my point about initiation of force against someone? Can you explain under what circumstances, and by what parties, you feel initiation of force is justified? (By force, I mean actual FORCE, not intimidation, coercion, or persuasion, but ACTUAL FORCE, np.)

reply from: yoda

Extreme hyperbole is the last refuge of frustrated debaters, Tam. Good job.

reply from: Tam

No, it isn't complicated at all.

reply from: yoda

Exactly, and that's why in infuriates them! Complication and confusion are their only tools in this debate!

reply from: NewPoster1

That is a bunch of bull, NP. I cannot FORCE my "views" onto you, I can merely EXPRESS my views. FORCING someone to do something means FORCING the person to do the thing. It doesn't mean making it difficult for the person to do some other thing, it means FORCING THE PERSON TO DO THE THING.

What I said is that by advocating for laws that restrict abortion you are attempting to impose your views on women who want to have abortions. Whether you like it or not imposing your views on others does indeed qualify as a form of force. To quote the relevant dictionary definition of force.

"To inflict or impose relentlessly: He forced his ideas upon the group."

Thus I am correct to accuse you of attempting to force women to use their bodies to do something that is being done against their will.

reply from: NewPoster1

Once again, if there's a problem during delivery that necessitates a ceasarian section in order to save the fetus do you believe that the woman should be forced to undergo the surgery, even if she doesn't want to do so?

Already answered this.

My mistake, I wasn't able to see your response due to an error that occurs while I'm logged in.

reply from: dignitarian

Using a premise that is purely opinion and is unprovable should not be the foundation of an argument. This premise is not likely to be accepted by anyone that does not already accept your conclusion and therefore is useless for your purpose.

reply from: dignitarian

Using a premise that is purely opinion and is unprovable should not be the foundation of an argument. This premise is not likely to be accepted by anyone that does not already accept your conclusion and therefore is useless for your purpose.

Sigma:

Re: My previous argument regarding the risk of harm to a being of inestimable worth.

You insist my premise is purely opinion and not likely to be accepted, thus my argument is useless.

I suggest you read it a little more carefully.

This argument is clearly (and validly) directed to those who would not dispute that a person under at least some sort of circumstance has inestimable worth, but who also happen to believe that this inestimable worth does not apply to the unborn.

However, for those that would deny the inestimable worth of ANY person under ANY circumstances, I suppose they could claim that my premise is invalid. Are you claiming to be in this category?

Let me know.

Thanks,

Dig

reply from: Tam

That is a bunch of bull, NP. I cannot FORCE my "views" onto you, I can merely EXPRESS my views. FORCING someone to do something means FORCING the person to do the thing. It doesn't mean making it difficult for the person to do some other thing, it means FORCING THE PERSON TO DO THE THING.

What I said is that by advocating for laws that restrict abortion you are attempting to impose your views on women who want to have abortions. Whether you like it or not imposing your views on others does indeed qualify as a form of force. To quote the relevant dictionary definition of force.

"To inflict or impose relentlessly: He forced his ideas upon the group."

Thus I am correct to accuse you of attempting to force women to use their bodies to do something that is being done against their will.

Honey, it just ain't so. Law enforcement agencies enforce laws. I am not a member of any law enforcement agency. Lawmakers MAKE laws, law enforcers ENFORCE laws. I can merely, as neither, state my POSITION and hope that the lawmakers listen and make LAWS that will then be enFORCEd by law enFORCEment agents.

I am well aware that the word "force" has more than one meaning. I don't deny that there are ways in which the word can be used to describe "force" that has nothing to do with the type of "force" I am describing. Many words have multiple meanings. Take, for example, the word "chair"--if I were using it to mean the type of CHAIR upon which one sits at the dinner table, and you were taking it to mean the type of CHAIR that is in charge of a Board of Directors, confusion and misunderstanding (not to mention mischaracterization of what I mean) would take place. That is what is happening here. I am not arguing that the word "force" cannot mean what you are saying it means. I am saying that it does not ALWAYS mean that, and that the way I am using it, I mean LITERAL force, not any sort of intellectual force, strength of belief, or whatever.

reply from: yoda

That's your "proof"????? How lame can you possbily be????

Dictionaries report HOW WE SPEAK..... they do not "PROVE" that ANYTHING WE SAY is TRUE!!

What a dud!

reply from: Tam

That's your "proof"????? How lame can you possbily be????

Dictionaries report HOW WE SPEAK..... they do not "PROVE" that ANYTHING WE SAY is TRUE!!

What a dud!

ROFL

reply from: Sigma

Tam,

If it makes it easier, imagine that she fell asleep in a park that is known to have roving bands of people doing this and that the connection involves no violence but simply plugs her into the violinist. It does not change the argument. As to your other example, the fetus does not have the right to expect the woman to give of herself to allow the fetus to live. No one has the right to expect that. Additionally, the fetus expects nothing. In the time frame the vast majority of abortions are performed, the fetus has no mind, no consciousness, no being and no existence in actuality. It has no choice and it has no concept of choice. To say the fetus “expects” anything is an empty concept.

No, this is not my justification for abortion.

I suggest you research the topic more, then. There is much more than the single similarity you claim. It is a famous argument, you should have little trouble finding information about it.

The violinist did not kidnap the woman, just as the fetus did not kidnap the woman. Both are passive innocents.

concernedparent,

You’re making it more complicated than it needs to be. There is little difference between a full-grown person attached to you and a fetus attached to you in terms of rights involved, if you assume a fetus has equal rights. In both cases, you are faced with the question of whether one has the right to take action to disconnect them if you know they will die without that connection. Pro-choice people assert it is perfectly justified to disconnect either, whether or not they have full rights. Pro-life people don’t seem to want to answer.

What you have stated as making them different is not valid, if I understand your objection correctly (I jump topics a lot, so if I get it wrong please correct me). You wish to say that allowing the violinist to die is different than actively disconnecting the fetus. This is not a reasonable objection, as I will clarify later in this post.

The organ transplant scenario is for those who justify disallowing abortion by stating that life is the highest ideal or that life is more important than rights. That blanket statement allows for the forced donation of organs to those who need them to live. Without qualifying that statement, you cannot stop it and remain consistent.

Sure, but we cannot do this at the expense of rights, else you would allow the forced organ transplant scenario above.

No. You are already connected, and you must make your decision from there. That is how the two situations are analogous. You can use birth control in an effort to prevent pregnancy, but the abortion debate is centered around what a woman may do after she is pregnant. Stating the difference is that the violinist is not yet connected is invalid because the argument includes the connection already made. Make your choice.

And if the woman does nothing, the violinist will be all better in 9 months.

Using the law to prevent the woman from doing something is, however.

This means nothing in terms of the rights the woman has.

So the fetus may not exercise any ‘right to life’ it may have to interfere with the rights of the woman in question. The woman has a right to make decisions regarding her body, and any right the fetus has may not interfere with this. Is this correct?

Yes. You also have rights to do something if your rights will be violated by another. You have the right to kill another if your rights will be violated in certain situations.

Welcome to the pro-choice side We do not necessarily say that there is no right to live, only that the right to live cannot infringe on the woman’s rights.

Except this is wrong. People do have the right to kill or harm others.

If you unhook him, he will die. If you do nothing, he will live. You must perform an aggressive action that you know will kill him, but that is ok because your rights are more important. This is justified, correct?

They are not as contradictory as you would like to believe.

I ignore nothing. The woman did indeed have the right to have sex, and did consent to sex (in the scenario we are talking about). However, sex does not equal pregnancy. Whatever moral responsibility she has to the fetus cannot be imposed by law and the legal act of sex, by itself, has no legal responsibility. I am saying that the woman’s right to bodily integrity should not be removed or violated because she had sex.

Except the fetus does not have any rights. However, ignoring that the fetus has no rights, the fetus would have no right to live attached to her against her will. Nobody has that right; not you, not me and not the fetus.

Regarding accountability, pregnancy should not be used as a tool to teach responsibility. It is a very personal relationship between the woman and what is growing inside her. To use it as a punishment or tool or beating stick is denigrating to women in general and mothers in particular. Stay out of that.

Good! Then she will make her own decision and her rights will not be violated. If the law disallows abortion, then her rights are violated.

And the gov’t, who would make the law disallowing abortion. In a sense, the fetus violates her bodily integrity but with no law disallowing abortion in place this is not really so, since she can remove it or allow it. If she has the choice, no real violation takes place.

Nice try at wordplay, but whether the fetus has any say or not does not negate that it is using her body against her will.

If society insists she do nothing, society is violating her rights because she has the right to do something. If you have the right to kill a burglar but society prevents you, society violates your right to kill the burglar.

Yes, very true I would be, since interfering with another’s body in this way violates their rights. In fact, they would be justified to kill me to prevent this.

Then we agree that causing the condition does not require you to allow your body to be used.

What are you talking about? I answered it very directly and in a way that is analogous to abortion. If the only way to prevent the person from attaching him/herself to me and use my body against my will is to kill them then I would indeed by justified to kill that person to prevent it, and would be justified to disconnect them at any time.

Logically, if there was another way (that is reasonable) to prevent this from happening without killing that person I would most likely not be justified in killing them. However, I do have the right to prevent it and I do have the right to disconnect them.

You wish to require her to sacrifice of her own body to allow the fetus to live. If the fetus could live without this sacrifice I would likely agree with you, but it is never justified in my view to require a person to sacrifice of themselves in this way (by this I mean of her physical body, the nutrients contained within, etc) to allow another to live.

A threat to what? Her rights? Or do you believe rights are unimportant? In our hypothetical you seemed to agree that I can kill someone who is attempting to attach him/herself to me were that the only way to stop them. You also seemed to agree that the violinist could be disconnected if you woke up with him attached to you. They are not real threats to you, but are a threat to your rights.

That is your opinion, and one I am trying to show has no logical basis to be made into law.

I am not required to do either by law, and I should not be required by law. None can use my body against my will in this way. Sorry. To attempt to make your personal beliefs in this area into law are inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the Constitution. Perhaps you now see why what you believe about abortion cannot be made law.

Dignitarian,

Not quite. I insist your premise is useless to what you seem to wish to use it for, which I assume is to convince pro-choice people of the error of their ways. It is useless for this purpose, yes.

There is no need, but thank you for the suggestion.

And this does not describe the vast majority of pro-choice people, thus my statement that it is not likely to be accepted by those who do not already agree with your conclusion. I have assumed you mean something akin to “unlimited” when you use the word “inestimable”. If this is not the case please correct me.

I claim that there is no such animal as “inestimable”, as I think you used it, in the legal sense or the moral sense. Whatever the individual worth of a person does depend on the circumstances in my view, yes.

reply from: yoda

Utter and absolute nonsense. EVERYONE has "that right" because it IS the NORMAL way that humans reproduce, and because no one has a say in their own reproduction. To deny that right is to deny the right of any human being to exist at any time, which means that you claim the right to extinguish all of humanity. No single stage of development of a human being removes the moral right to life, not even the difficult teenage years.

As has been remarked previously, this is all about values. You obviously do not value a human life as much as a used piece of chewing gum, but we do. No amount of long, boring, repetitive nonsense from you will change that.

reply from: Sigma

Then you can tell me where this right comes from, in a legal sense?

Eh? Once one is born, ones situation has changed and the justifications for abortion no longer apply.

It's about the law, yodavater. That is what being pro-life and pro-choice is all about. Your personal attacks are irrelevent.

reply from: AshMarie88

Sigma, imagine being taken against your own will, held down, and mutilated.

You wouldn't like it, would you? I didn't think so.

reply from: yoda

Are you a legislator? A judge? A chief executive of some governmental body?

No? Then why on earth are you beating that dead horse? If you're not debating changes in the law with some body that has the power to change them, why are you wasting our time?

Hey, guess what? We KNOW what the law is! We've know it for 33 years!

No, for "nobodies" like you and I, debating the law is rather stupid, since anyone can read it, and most everyone already knows what it is. IOW, there IS NO DEBATE ABOUT THE LAW!!

Got that? Good!

Now, are you ready to debate the morality of electively killing innocent babies? Or do you want to recite Roe & Doe to us, one paragraph at a time?

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88,

I don't like a lot of things, AshMarie. I wouldn't like it if suddenly I were requiring to allow the use of my body to support someone else's life.

yodavater,

You don't know what I am, yodavater.

Part of the debate, yodavater, is whether it is legally correct or Constitutional to allow or disallow abortion. Do you wish to make abortion illegal? If you do not then you are, techically, pro-choice.

Then you agree that keeping abortion legal is Constitutional? You agree that it should not be made illegal? If you disagree, I would like to know what legal basis you have for wishing to make it illegal.

Certainly I can debate the morality with you. First, however, I wish to know your stance on making abortion illegal.

reply from: galen

Sig,
Laws were meant to reflect the wants of society. Laws are also used as the providers of abortion see fit. This happened both before and after RvW. I have been in the medical profession now for many years and have seen both lifesaving and self serving terminations.

It seems to me that when you use the issue of the mother's rights that you leave out the rights of the person waiting to be born.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have seen hundreds of patients in my office who have had abortions and were just lied to by the abortion counselor. Namely 'This is less painful than having a tooth removed. It is not a baby.' Afterwards, the woman sees Life magazine and breaks down and goes into a major depression." --Psychologist Vincent Rue quoted in "Abortion Inc" David Kupelian and Jo Ann Gasper, New Dimensions, October 1991 p 16

"Sometimes we lied. A girl might ask what her baby was like at a certain point in the pregnancy: Was it a baby yet? Even as early as 12 weeks a baby is totally formed, he has fingerprints, turns his head, fans his toes, feels pain. But we would say 'It's not a baby yet. It's just tissue, like a clot." --Kathy Sparks told in "The Conversion of Kathy Sparks" by Gloria Williamson, Christian Herald Jan 1986 p 28
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would advise you to do a bit more research... preferably in a NICU.... when you realize that in this day and age that viability is the perogitive of Nature and not of Humans, then you might realise that at any second Nature will sometimes allow one child to live, and in the same breath snuff out the life of another.
It is not our place to create a child and then turn around and say" oops" .

Unless you would like to go back to a time when unless you were white male and Protestant you had no legal standing. If you say yes to the above then IMHO you have shown your true colours, disguised under a thin veil of women's rights.

Mary
I'll follow you into the dark

reply from: dignitarian

Sigma:

You say:

"I claim that there is no such animal as “inestimable”, as I think you used it, in the legal sense or the moral sense. Whatever the individual worth of a person does depend on the circumstances in my view, yes."

So now at least we are getting somewhere.



Your choice of the word "animal" in this context is interesting, but we have bigger "fish" to fry, thus I will not dally.

Based on your view, the worth of a person is strictly finite and is dependent upon "circumstances". I think it would be most interesting then to actually hypothesize the affects of such a perspective in actual practice.

For example, if one accepts as truth that the value of a person is both finite and circumstantially variable, one must also accept as truth of course that some given circumstance must necessarily correspond to a definite level of human value. I would not suggest that such a relationship would be reasonably discernable within practical reality. However, I would easily suggest that the door of opportunity is now open for anyone to successfully assert that it is.

In the case of such an event, when it comes to human value, the only question then becomes; who has the power to decide the "circumstances" and who has the power to decide the "worth"?

Of course the sorrowful reality is that one does not have to hypothesize such a scenario at all. Whether civil injustice, human slavery, or genocide; the common thread is always the devaluation of one set of persons with respect to another.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: Sigma

galen,

Yes, this is true to a certain extent. They may not be changed willy-nilly, but in a democracy laws reflect the will of the people. We are not a democracy, but some of the same concepts apply.

There will always be such with every aspect of life. However, it is not the business of the gov't to make us good and kind and generous people. The business of the gov't is to allow us to live with as little interference as possible.

I do not believe so, but I can see how you would think so. This is perhaps the crux of the issue. Those who are pro-choice focus on the woman and believe her rights are paramount. Those who are pro-life focus on the fetus and believe it's rights are paramount.

I, personally, do consider the fetus. I believe that, if there were no issues with the woman involved, we should do all in our power to allow the fetus to live. However, there is another involved with the pregnancy and she should never ever ever be disregarded. She has desires and she has a will of her own, and none have the right to live attached to another against that other's will and without that other's consent. The gov't cannot Constitutionally violate one person's rights to save another person's life. That would be a step toward Fascism, where rights are disregarded when faced with moral values.

I have done a great deal of research on this subject, but thank you.

I'm not sure what you are trying to relate to me.

Under what authority do you say this?

This has no relation to this topic.

reply from: Sigma

Since it relates directly to the issue you are asking below, I believe it is relevant to note that one is not required by law to give of your own body to another, even if that other is a person.

Actually, whether or not the fetus is a person is not the core issue. Even were it considered a person, neither you nor I would be required by law to provide of our body to allow it to live.

Please note what we said above:I certainly do believe that if you intentionally cause my kidneys to fail you should be forced to give me one of yours to prevent my death, that otherwise, you would have directly caused, and if you deliberately cut me with a knife, you should be forced to give blood to prevent my death
I responded with
I am not required to do either by law, and I should not be required by law. None can use my body against my will in this way

Do you agree that I am not required, even if the other is considered a person?

reply from: Sigma

dignitarian

In a sense, at least legally.

Reasonably so. For example, if one sues for the wrongful death of a relative, that relative is worth exactly as much as you sue for, at least legally.

It depends on the case and the law in question.

Religion is also a common thread in many instances.

reply from: yoda

I wonder if anyone would like to get back to the question that is the title of this thread?

Any proabort takers?

reply from: Sigma

To come into line with the original question:

I don't make any dividing line at viability.

How would we apply the viability line to born humans? Do you mean, if they cannot live? Mechanical assistance is not the dividing point, the viability line, as used in Roe anyway, includes mechanical assistence. Non-viable means they cannot live even with mechanical assitance.

reply from: galen

sig,

This has no relation to this topic.

If you think that this statement has no relation to the topic, it does show how little you really care for anything that has to do with the subject of abortion and viability.

I think you did just show your true colours.

mary
I'll follow you into the dark.

reply from: Sigma

Galen

I care much about the issue of abortion, and I do not see that the quote had much if anything to do with the topic. Perhaps if you clarify the connection.

If you wish. Care to respond to any other part of my post?

reply from: galen

no , not at the moment... i have spent the last few days following what you have written... and to be honest a lot of it sounds good. However , when i look at the substance behinde it, it just does not add up... I must say that i am VERY suspicious of the lip service that has been paid by you twards women.
Your explanations as to why you do certain things and why you believe certain things sound like they started out great in your head but have no basis in reality.

Mary
I'll follow you into the dark.

reply from: Sigma

Then by all means show me how this is so.

reply from: AshMarie88

You would totally be disregarding the other person who is living, and who has to die at the expense of what YOU want. Well guess what? 9 months is not that long, and a woman could survive pregnancy that long. At least the person created wouldn't have to die at the expense of what the woman wants...

reply from: galen

you start out with this statement:
Tam

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you do to help reduce and discourage abortion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I contribute to a battered women’s shelter in my area, allowing pregnant women who believe that they cannot have a child in the situation they are in a way to continue their pregnancies safely. Much domestic violence begins with the woman’s first pregnancy, and domestic violence generally escalates when the woman is pregnant. It is important to get pregnant women away from men who harm them, as it increases during this time and can harm the fetus within her.

I am certain that many women have an abortion in this situation so they can avoid their husbands anger.

-------------------------
Faith is a substitute for knowledge, as death is for a difficult life

then you go to this:

No, I would not stand outside of an abortion clinic. For starters, I have little time for that, having a full-time job In all seriousness, no I would not, for a few reasons. First, I have to correct my previous post a bit. The shelter I contribute to isn’t only a shelter, it is a program that attempts to teach women to be self-sufficient and to care for their children. Otherwise the women will simply go back to the men who abuse them because they feel safe there. For this reason they know, as I do, that if the women do not seek them out there is little likelihood that the women will complete the program. It is not an easy program, and many decide they don’t want to continue and leave, to go back to the men who abuse them. If the women themselves do not find an important enough reason to leave their situation it is likely they will not complete the program. If they have gone to the abortion clinic they are not looking for a way out of their situation, they are looking for a way to stay there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds great... but as you can read here in the forum I've been extensively involved in womens health issues...
Your reasons for the lack of advertising for the shelter do not ring true. i can think of dozens of OTHER reasons not to advertise a shelter...ie, they do not want the abusive spouse to find them, however the one you gave is Certainly not one I've every heard of. I've chaired or been involved in over 30 in the US ,Canada and Britain.

its other little inconsistancies that say you are not as involved with your causes as you seem to be.

Mary
I'll follow you into the dark.

reply from: dignitarian

Sigma:

You responded to my argument in which I related your circumstantial notions of human worth to instances of human tragedy. Your answer was as follows:

"Religion is also a common thread in many instances."

Such a statement does not complement the issue at hand in any way whatsoever, unless the objective is to simply use it as a diversion.

In case you missed it, the point was that a relativistic notion of human value is a NECESSARY COMPONENT in each of such human tragedies. Religion is not; although you are certainly free to attempt to make the case that it is.

But don't get me wrong, I couldn't have come up with anything else either.

Anyway, let me know if you can think of something better.

As always,

Dignitarian



reply from: yoda

That's easy. I neither advocate nor oppose the criminalization of abortion. I oppose it on moral grounds. I will for the time being leave legislative and judicial matters to the legislatures and the judicary.

NOW, why do you consider the elective killing of innocent babies to be a moral choice?

reply from: yoda

Then why did you enter this thread?

reply from: Sigma

galen,

I didn’t read that, no. Congratulations.

I have spoken at some length with the manager of the shelter, and the husbands do generally know where they are. There is some sort of arrangement (no, I don’t know the details) with the local police, and the husbands are not allowed to approach and are not allowed within the facility. In fact, the women are denied male contact while inside the facility, whether over the phone or face-to-face, as far as I know. Men in general can come within, but generally have little to no contact with the women in the program.

It must keep you very busy. The woman I know is on call constantly and can take little time off. She had part of Thanksgiving and part of Christmas day off, but that’s about it. Even then she gets paged.

I don’t claim to be an expert, but I contribute to the facility and have done some research on the subject (mostly consisting of speaking with the manager I know personally there). They don’t advertise the facility much at all, and many women fail the program if they do not seek it out themselves. Even if it is part of a court order, women do not like the self-sufficiency the program requires.

concernedparent,

Please, concernedparent, we are trying to determine if abortion would be disallowed if the fetus is considered a person logically, otherwise we simply go in circles. My assertion that abortion would not be disallowed. To do this logically I begin with a premise we both agree on, so please do me the courtesy of agreeing with my premise or showing logically why it is wrong. I am asking you: Do you agree that I am not required to prevent your death by giving of my own body, even if I directly and deliberately caused your condition?

In previous posts you seemed to indicate that you agreed, but I don’t want to assume this.

dignitarian

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant, so I apologize that I was not clear. I was agreeing that devaluing a group is a common thread in certain tragedies. However, I was cautioning you from making a connection where one is not, perhaps, warranted. Religion is also a common thread in many instances. This does not mean that religion is bad, only that was used in a bad way in those instances. Do not assume causation where it is not warranted.

yodavater,

Then you are neither pro-choice or pro-life, politically speaking. That is an interesting position to take.

The morality depends on the circumstances of the specific instance, so there is no broad “having an abortion is moral” or “having an abortion is immoral” in my view. Do you have a more specific question?

I was responding to someone’s post.

reply from: yoda

I used the term "elective", meaning an abortion done for social or economic reasons rather than medical ones. Is that specific enough for you, or do you need to know how poor the woman is, or how many of her associates are pressuring her to abort her baby?

You had to click on the subject line FIRST, before you could see any of the posts. Why did you?

reply from: Sigma

yodavater

More specific than simply “elective”, yes. I also wish to be clear that I think she is morally justified in any abortion, even if the reason she is using is not a moral one. Does that make sense to you? I wish to make this clear so you can ask me questions with this in mind.

I was reading different threads in this forum; this was merely one of them. I saw a post that I wished to respond to, so I did. There was no reasoned decision.

reply from: domsmom

I was wondering about your sig. Does that mean you think people of faith arent knowledgable, and dieing is preferable to going through a struggle?

reply from: yoda

"Any" abortion? Okay, let's start with this one: A woman has been invited to go to the beach with her gal friends, and she worries that her pregnancy might not allow her to fit into her swimsuit if she carries it to term. So she aborts in order to fit her swimsuit.

And you think that's morally justified?

reply from: Sigma

yodavater

Given the situation of pregnancy, she is morally justified. I do not believe her reason was moral, and would defintinetly believe she should not do so for that reason.

reply from: Sigma

domsmom,

Apologies, I did not see your post the first time around

No, it means that if you use faith to avoid knowledge or instead of knowledge about a subject it similar to killing yourself to avoid a difficult life. Faith instead of knowledge is intellectual suicide, if you want to look at it that way. Another way of looking at it is that it is better to learn for yourself than to take someone elses word for it.

reply from: dignitarian

Sigma:

You responded:

(Quote)

“Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant, so I apologize that I was not clear. I was agreeing that devaluing a group is a common thread in certain tragedies. However, I was cautioning you from making a connection where one is not, perhaps, warranted. Religion is also a common thread in many instances. This does not mean that religion is bad, only that was used in a bad way in those instances. Do not assume causation where it is not warranted.”

(Unquote)

The above response is not an effective retort to my assertion that A RELATIVISTIC NOTION OF HUMAN WORTH IS A NECESSARY CONDITION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GROSS CIVIL INJUSTICE, HUMAN SLAVERY, AND GENOCIDE. Stating, for instance, that; “Religion is also a common thread in many instances.” does not complement my assertion in either a positive or a negative sense.

If you intend to assert that I am; “…making a connection where one is not, perhaps, warranted”, then fire away. What’s this “perhaps” stuff? It’s not like I haven’t been shot at before. Tell me how I’m wrong!

I’ll tell you what; if you can explain, using just a single example among the types of human tragedies given above how I am wrong, you win and I’ll shut up for a while. You can use any such event of history or you may even hypothesize one on your own.

On the other hand you can continue with the “spin”. I read some of your other posts and you’re actually not too bad at it. It just isn’t interesting.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: Sigma

dignitarian

And I agreed, or so I thought. I was cautioning you not to assume causation when it may not be warranted. Relativistic notions of human worth may indeed be necessary for bad things, but that does not necessarily mean that relativistic notions cause those bad things. Similarly, there are bad things done in the name of religion, but that does not necesarily tar religion.

I am not trying to tell you that you are wrong. I agreed. Please, continue your thought, and I will tell you if I agree with your conclusion. I assume it will be to compare abortion to some horrible tradgedy in the past and then blame the notion of relative worth, but I am waiting for you to get there first.

reply from: dignitarian

Sigma:

Common ground has actually been discovered. This is good news.

I will gladly intertain additional constructive dialogue along the lines of human value, thus far we have simply agreed that a relativistic view of human value is a necessary condition for the existence of certain human tragedies.

At this point I don't want to blindly preach. I want to find more common ground.

Thus a question: What is your basis in reason for insisting upon a relativistic notion of human value?

Thanks,

Dignitarian

reply from: dadserna

Sigma
First let me apologize for being tardy to this discussion. I took part in this thread earlier but was busy elsewhere more recently. If you don't mind I would like to put to rest your violinist scenario.
The organ recipient is not intitled to anything from the forced donor because it is not a natural occurance. If however you, I and every other person on the planet, had been the beneficiary of this type of forced organ donation then your case may have a leg to stand on. On the other hand we all have been the beneficiary of a pregnancy that was carried to completion. In other words instead of looking for fairness, or a lack of fairness. between the mother and child the issue should be considered from a societal perspective. The pregnant woman has already recieved her benefit by being born. Therefore carrying the baby to term cannot be considered extraordinary(in most cases). She is only giving something which she has already recieved.

Jay

reply from: Sigma

dignitarian

A rare thing these days

I'm not certain what sort of value you mean so I am assuming. If anything I say does not apply please let me know.

I can find no reason to entertain the notion of objective human value, for one thing. Value has no physical properties that are observable or measurable, except by other humans. Were other humans besides yourself to cease to exist you would have no special value simply because you are human. Your value, even to yourself, would hinge on your ability to survive.

However, the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence, so some evidence of relativistic value is needed. The only evidence I have is through observation. I place value on others based on who and what they are, and what they have done. While I do indeed value humans for being human, and others do as well, this value is contingent on me existing and so is not objective but is subjective. You do not 'generate' value, even with me valuing you. The value I percieve of you is within myself. I must assume the same experience applies to others.

Does this answer your question?

reply from: Sigma

dadserna,

I have kept busy, so no problem

It is not exactly an organ recipient, it is a connection that transfers nutrients and, necessarily for the analogy to work, works in a similar way as the umbilical cord. I must ask, how does the difference between natural or synthetic ever affect rights? Natural does not equal good, natural does not equal cannot be changed. Our rights, moral or legal, have never, to myknowledge, been contingent on how 'natural' the situation is, only that the situation is encountered.

This sort of 'eye for an eye' mentality does not fit our situation well, I daresay. If I were the recipient of an organ stolen from a person, that automatically entitles others to steal organs from me? Dadserna, stealing is wrong even if the person you stole from has stolen in the past. With this you would unravel the moral basis of "turn the other cheek" and advocate revenge in the most base form.

I'm not sure exactly what your societal argument is, could you expand upon that? Every member of society has been carried through pregnancy to completion, so we must ensure everyone is carried through to completion?

Yes, I would agree she is giving something she has already received. Well, no, she isn't 'giving it', it is being required of her. She has no choice, if you had your way. To be honest, whether what we wish to do is 'extraordinary' or not, it does require self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice should not be forced, whether or not others sacrificed for her. Others had the choice as well (or, at least, should have).

reply from: yoda

You seem to be speaking with a forked tongue.

If she IS "morally justified", why would you say she "should not" do so?

reply from: Sigma

There is a difference between what one is morally allowed to do in a situation and what I believe a moral reason to do so is. One can do a moral action, for immoral reasons. One can donate money to a charity outside of a market, which is a moral action, but if you are doing it to impress your girl/boyfriend that is not a moral reason. Similarly, you can perform immoral actions for moral reasons. The actions remain immoral.

I would not say that abortion is either moral or immoral. It is nearly always a selfish action, but selfish actions are not necessarily immoral. Taking care of yourself first is morally allowable and justified.

In your example, her reason for having an abortion, because she wants to fit into her suit, is a frivolous reason to end something as serious as pregnancy and I would try to convince her not to. Using a frivolous reason to end something so important makes the reason immoral, imo. However, she is morally allowed to end the pregnancy for any reason at all, or no reason at all.

reply from: dadserna

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to preserve or better society we are forced to make sacrifices whether we like it or not. Taxes jury duty, (formerly)military svc, etc. are all sacrifices. Even if you feel these things have not improved society, they do represent examples of forced sacrifices. So your arguement here is only subjective. It is perfectly legitimate to put societal impact, above her personal interest. Whether or not the negative impact to society carries enough weight to impose on her interest is a matter for debate. Obviously I believe the negative impact is significant enough.
Jay

reply from: Sigma

dadserna

You do not believe, then, that a woman continuing a pregnancy and giving birth is as self-sacrificing as the woman in our hypothetical situation because pregnancy is more commonplace? Is this your stance?

So requiring pregnancy benefits or is good for society. Does this only apply to pregnancy, or is benefit to society an over-riding factor in all aspects of life?

You advocate forced pregnancy, however, because it's good for society. Pro-choice people do not advocate any of these things. The Violinist Argument attempts to point out that the situation should not be forced.

And if women revolt because they no longer wish to, in effect, donate the use of their organs? Would the forced pregnancy then be an injustice? It seems this can be expanded to show pro-life people treat women as less than a person.

Though they all go through hardships, dangers, and discomforts for pregnancy. I'm not sure if how common it is reduces the sacrifice each individual woman makes for her pregnancy.

Pro-choice people don't ask for extraordinary rights for women. You, me, each of us would have the right to disconnect anyone attached to us if we did not want them there. Except pregnant women.

Just so I'm clear, your argument is "For the good of society, we should force women to continue their pregnancies regardless of the personal negative impact to her". Is that right?

concernedparent

And I'm trying to stop it, I really am. I want to make progress. Please, answer my question:Do you agree that I am not required to prevent your death by giving of my own body, even if I directly and deliberately caused your condition?

If you are right, then you should be able to show that I, in the situation where I directly and deliberately caused a failure of your organs, would be required to allow you to use my organs. If this is the case, I would have to concede that giving the fetus equal rights to you would allow the fetus to do the same to me, if I caused the fetus to come to be.

If you agree that I am not required, then giving the fetus equal rights to you would mean that I am not required to give of my own body even if I caused the fetus to come to be. Why is this an unfair question?

reply from: dadserna

So requiring pregnancy benefits or is good for society. Does this only apply to pregnancy, or is benefit to society an over-riding factor in all aspects of life?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Without pregnancy there would be no next generation. So, flawed we may be, but the world keeps turning. So pregnancy, without question, benefits society. Benefits or detriments to society should be a consideration in pregnancy and many other aspects of life. Whether it is "over-riding" would depend on those benefits or detriments to society as determined by society.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You advocate forced pregnancy, however, because it's good for society. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find it interesting that when you started this response using "continuing pregnancy" then switched to "requiring pregnancy" and now "forced pregnancy". Allow me to clarify. I support continuing pregnancy. "Requiring pregnancy" is appropriate for livestock or a dog breeders not women. I also would be against "forced pregnancy" such as rape.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro-choice people do not advocate any of these things. The Violinist Argument attempts to point out that the situation should not be forced.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quite the opposite. Babies ARE killed and used for research. It is the prochoicers who advocate this. So in your analogy the BABY would now be equal to the person forced to donate the use of their body or even give their life. How do you justify what you have been saying is unjust simply because the roles are reversed?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And if women revolt because they no longer wish to, in effect, donate the use of their organs? Would the forced pregnancy then be an injustice? It seems this can be expanded to show pro-life people treat women as less than a person.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonsense. As I stated above there is a difference between forced pregnancy and continued pregnancy.
Prolife people treat the woman as a complete person when she is an adult, when she is an adolescent, when she is a toddler, and when she is in her mothers womb. It is prochoicers who treat her as less than a person and advocate the right to kill her.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Though they all go through hardships, dangers, and discomforts for pregnancy. I'm not sure if how common it is reduces the sacrifice each individual woman makes for her pregnancy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sacrifice does not change. Our perception of it may, but the actual sacrifice is the same whether it is one or one billion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro-choice people don't ask for extraordinary rights for women. You, me, each of us would have the right to disconnect anyone attached to us if we did not want them there. Except pregnant women.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's expand your hypothetical situation in order to apply it to more pregnancies.
If you volunteered to be hooked up to this person for the duration required, say 9 months, how then do you justify forcing the disconnection. How do you justify killing her. You must have known there would be some discomfort, even some health risks. Why should you have the right to change your mind at the expense of her life?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just so I'm clear, your argument is "For the good of society, we should force women to continue their pregnancies regardless of the personal negative impact to her". Is that right?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The benefits and detriments to society should be considered along with any reasonably expected negative impact to her. Society must decide how much weight to to give each factor. In those rare cases of extreme danger to the mother the negative impact should carry more weight. In typical pregnancies it should carry less.

Thanks
Jay

reply from: Tam

I find it interesting that when you started this response using "continuing pregnancy" then switched to "requiring pregnancy" and now "forced pregnancy". Allow me to clarify. I support continuing pregnancy. "Requiring pregnancy" is appropriate for livestock or a dog breeders not women. I also would be against "forced pregnancy" such as rape.
Thanks
Jay

Awesome point, Jay.

reply from: Sigma

So, because she was sacrificed for in the past, continuing her pregnancy is not as self-sacrificing as the woman in our hypothetical violinist situation? This is your stance?

Yes, we all have an interest that the next generation gets pregnant. However, we are talking about requiring pregnancy to continue when the woman in question does not wish to be.

You feel that pregnancy is an overriding concern for society, and so that justififies society requiring women to remain pregnant, is this correct?

I used "continuing pregnancy" in another context. I was using "requiring pregnancy" and "forced pregnancy" interchangably, and if this bothers you I can stop. If you do not advocate requiring pregnancies to continue I am not sure what your point is.

I am assuming you mean the fetus in the womb, as killing babies for research would be illegal no matter what. It is not pro-choice people alone who advocate research such as stem-cell research. Pro-choice people advocate having abortion available as a choice, nothing more.

How do you justify requiring women to donate the use of their organs, if you do not think forced organ donation is justified? Both could be justified as good for society. This seems contradictory.

And if she is forced to continue her pregnancy against her will? I am not sure what you are advocating now.

Is it our perception of her sacrifice that is important, or is it her sacrifice that is important?

Except a woman does not volunteer to be pregnant, unless she had sex with the intention of becoming pregnant. All others volunteered for sex, but sex does not equal pregnancy. Unless you have the woman sign a waiver when she has sex, she has not volunteered for anything except sex.

Society has weighed this, and has decided that the consideration to the woman is greater.

reply from: Tam

I used "continuing pregnancy" in another context. I was using "requiring pregnancy" and "forced pregnancy" interchangably, and if this bothers you I can stop. If you do not advocate requiring pregnancies to continue I am not sure what your point is.

LOL Care to explain the difference between "requiring pregnancy" and "requiring pregnancy to continue"?

The reason to stop using "forced pregnancy" is not as some gesture of good will--it is that it is a twisted and inaccurate way to refer to the situation. The only time anyone is forced into pregnancy is if a woman is raped with the specific intention of impregnating her, and the woman actually does conceive. That is a far cry from a position that extends legal protection to the unborn.

reply from: galen

Tam,
Absolutely.

BTW Sig,
You are treating ( in your language ) abused women as if they have an addiction. The psychology is not there, it is quite diffrent. maybe if you spent more time volunteering in the shelter instead of trying to pull one over on us with these unrealistic arguments, you would know that.

Mary
I'll follow you into the dark.

reply from: Sigma

Hm, it seems you do not know much about battered women. The program seeks to encourage self-sufficiency, it is not like 'treating an addiction' per se, it is teaching women they do not need the men who abuse them. In a sense it is an addiction, in that women tend to return to those who abuse them.

From http://www.aaets.org/article58.htm
So, how do we intervene? The answer is related to questions that colleagues and I have often asked ourselves and each other: Why do battered women tolerate the abuse for so long before seeking help? And why, even after receiving help, do they so often return to their abusive partners?

A big part of helping the situation is breaking through the denial women throw around to justify staying. If they have found something worth leaving for, say to protect their kids, they have made a good step because they then realize that the situation is a bad one.

reply from: galen

Sorry but that link means nothing if you yourself do not fully understand the research... And yes i do understand battered women... Again... my Creds are posted in several other threads here.....just use a search under galen and you can read all about it.

Mary
i'll follow you into the dark

PS this Avartar is used by myself and the women at the shelter where I volunteer my time.

reply from: Sigma

Then tell me about it. Why is it you believe women do not go back to the men who abuse them?

No, but thank you.

reply from: dadserna

I am assuming you mean the fetus in the womb, as killing babies for research would be illegal no matter what. It is not pro-choice people alone who advocate research such as stem-cell research. Pro-choice people advocate having abortion available as a choice, nothing more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not true sir. Some partial birth abortions are not really "partial". The babies are killed or allowed to die after being born. Organs are harvested for research.
So I ask again. How do you justify this since you have been saying it was unjust in your hypothetical situation?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do you justify requiring women to donate the use of their organs, if you do not think forced organ donation is justified? Both could be justified as good for society. This seems contradictory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Society did not get her pregnant. She made a decision. She was aware of the potential consequences. So she controls what is or is not required of her.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And if she is forced to continue her pregnancy against her will? I am not sure what you are advocating now.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Women of the future make up about half the preborn babies killed in America. In other counties such as India the ratio is higher since they use ultrasound to determine the sex and then kill specifically because the child is female. Even if we confine our debate to America, it is dishonest to say that the prochoice advocates defend women when half the people they want to be killed are women of the future. It is also dishonest to portray pro life people as anti women since half the people we are trying to save will become women.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it our perception of her sacrifice that is important, or is it her sacrifice that is important?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we say that 10 billion women made this sacrifice, to one person the huge number makes the sacrifice seem to be less. To another person it would seem more. Reality is what is important, not perception.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except a woman does not volunteer to be pregnant, unless she had sex with the intention of becoming pregnant. All others volunteered for sex, but sex does not equal pregnancy. Unless you have the woman sign a waiver when she has sex, she has not volunteered for anything except sex.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So then you concede that if she tries to become pregnant, she should not be allowed to abort? That would be analogous to disconnecting your transfer tube. I think we might be making progress. lol
Also sex is part of the equation that leads to pregnancy. So if she has sex, she is responsible for the consequences.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Society has weighed this, and has decided that the consideration to the woman is greater.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not true again sir. Most states decided in favor of the baby. Five people decided this matter for the nation with four dissenting. Even many prochoice legalist admit the supreme ct made new law in RvW. In doing so these 5 usurped the authority of the people.

Again sig I think I should apologize for my delay in responding, and I thank you for your indulgence. I'm kinda busy trying to raise a future man and 2 future women.
Jay

reply from: Sigma

I'm not trying to avoid your point, I'm trying to nail down why our hypothetical is different than pregnancy. It is not because the connection is artificial, per se. You said: This is an undeniable difference between your hypothetical situation and pregnancy. A pregnant woman is not being asked to do anything that was not already done for her. You transfer tube host however is being forced to perform "heroic measures". This is a significant difference.

From this I'm drawing your reasoning as: The woman in our hypothetical would be heroic to sacrifice for the violinist attached to her. This is because no one has done this for the woman. A woman who is pregnant is not heroic when she sacrifices for her pregnancy because she was sacrificed for in the past.

Is this your stance?

So what happens when she tries to stop being pregnant? Do you stop her? She would then not be pregnant without your intervention (or the intervention of society). You are... compelling her to continue something when you will not allow her to stop. You're trying to split hairs.

The violinist argument? How do you extend that allowing another to die without your connection is unjust from that? The point of the argument is that it is allowable to allow another to die by disconnecting them.

You do not allow her any control when she is pregnant, which is what pro-choice people fight. Being aware of potential consequences does not disallow changing those consequences if one is able to.

Only if you are disingenuous. "Women" obviously refers to the woman who is pregnant.

Then it doesn't matter how many went through that sacrifice, and no sacrifice is made less because others make that sacrifice. The reality is that women sacrifice for their pregnancies. Each woman goes through hardships, dangers, and discomforts.

I will concede that if she tries to get pregnant and succeeds, the reason to abort would have to be damn good to be a moral one. Financial, physical, mental and emotional issues, beyond something catastrophic, would not be moral reasons.

If she has sex, she is indeed responsible for the consequences. It is a personal responsibility, however, not a societal one. She has a right to choose to hide from responsibility. It is a personal choice.

Part of our society is SCOTUS, and most of the nation does not believe Roe should be overturned.

Congrats

reply from: Sigma

When it is the woman who must endure those months, the woman answers the question for herself.

reply from: Sigma

Even if abortion is illegal, the woman herself is the only one who can decide whether carrying the pregnancy was worth it. You ask a philosophical question and cannot continue it philosophically.

You're a one trick pony, and even your one trick isn't very good.

reply from: galen

ok lets see if we understand this.... sorry i've been busy?

quote:
Then tell me about it. Why is it you believe women do not go back to the men who abuse them?

Is this what you really meant?

I think that EVERY case is individual, as to the reasons women go and the reason's women stay. i DO NOT feel that offering an AB as a quick fix will do anything psychologically for the woman in question, and in my experience usually adds more fuel to the fire..especially if the abuser finds out.
As far as why women go back... there are diffrent answers for diffrent women. Peer/ Parental pressure; religious pressure, need for funds, fear of the unknown ( freedom and dependance on self) VS the known( the abuser; especially in cases of psychological abuse).
Some women must be forced to stay away and some women don't, depending on each case history and the type of abuse there are LOTS of diffrent answers.
What doesn't work is treating it as if it were a drug. I've seen this approach tried 10 years ago in various places. It didn't work then and it does not to my experience. Individual treatment plans work. 12 steps do not. ( for this case)

Forcing a woman who is at risk for her life to seek you out does not usually work... not that women do not find shelters on thier own, but a support system on the outside and inside is the only thing that seems to keep them safe. And some will still self distruct.

Back to the abortion issue, I have seen MORE women ( and I've looked at our #'s for the past 3 years) who have had a termination, and left the programme to go back to the abuser, than I have women who finished the pregnancy and either kept the child or adopted it out, go back to thier abuser.

Not to mention the #'s that came back after the AB procedure and enter counseling that is directly related to the AB and not for other causes.

Mary

reply from: cali1981

I just happened upon this discussion after a week of being gone and I just wanted to say that everyone is making great points. It's just sad that Tam has to make the SAME points over and over again because people just aren't getting it, or are CHOOSING not to get it. Anyway, good job Tam on finding all these different ways to say the same thing!

reply from: Sigma

I would agree with that. I certainly don’t advocate women getting abortions in that situation for those reasons.

I agree, and did not ask why women go back. However, the majority of cases see women going back to their abusers for those psychological reasons.

I do not advocate forcing women to stay away from their abusers.

It can be a type of psychological dependency, as you said, so in that sense it is similar to a drug. I did not advocate a 12 step program, and I agree individual treatment is what is needed.

Forcing women into the program also does not usually work, nor would I force her if I could and it did. It is a woman’s personal choice to screw up her life is she chooses to, all that can be done (or that I am willing to do) is offer her options. If it is important enough for her to drop the rationalizations to stay (as you said, the known vs the unknown), she will take those options.

I do not dispute this. The affect on the woman is highly individual. I have not claimed that abortion is the best choice for the woman in this situation, neither have I advocated for women in this situation to get abortions.

cali1981

Likely, then, the reason none respond is that it is the same point over and over and had little importance even the first time it was raised.

reply from: yoda

Your postings remind me of the story about the flea crawling up the elephant's leg with rape on it's mind. Same megalomania.

reply from: galen

yodavater

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you're being a bit overly-dramatic here, sigma. On these forums we've know many, many proaborts who do seem ashamed of their positions. Only a tiny fraction of them seem to have even a slight resemblance to your description.

As a perfect example, take the proabort objections to the term "proabort" or "proabortion", or "proabortion rights advocate", even. No proabort will use the word "abortion" to describe his/her position, they DO seem ashamed to be associated with the word "abortion" in ANY way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“pro-abortion” is a misrepresentation of the pro-choice view, so no wonder it is objected to. Few people, pro-choice or no, would advocate abortion which is what “pro-abortion” implies. Pro-choice people advocate that woman have the choice of abortion available, hence the moniker “pro-choice”.

It would be akin to me using “anti-women” for the pro-life view. Certainly this has certain support, but you, I believe, are not advocating against women but are advocating for the life of the fetus. Over women’s rights, certainly, but then we would be splitting hairs.

Tam

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you do to help reduce and discourage abortion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I contribute to a battered women’s shelter in my area, allowing pregnant women who believe that they cannot have a child in the situation they are in a way to continue their pregnancies safely. Much domestic violence begins with the woman’s first pregnancy, and domestic violence generally escalates when the woman is pregnant. It is important to get pregnant women away from men who harm them, as it increases during this time and can harm the fetus within her.

I am certain that many women have an abortion in this situation so they can avoid their husbands anger.

*************************

That you support Ab for women in your shelter certainly seems to be the implication, given the thread and what you have said in it.
If you would please make it a bit more clear what your position is in this instance....
You keep stateing that it is the woman's choice to abort as she has more rights than the fetus...then you make a statement like this....

Mary

reply from: Sigma

I do apologize for not being clear, and will do what I can to clarify.

I support a woman's ability to choose to have an abortion, but I do what I can to reduce their occurance. I support the shelter to give women in a certain situation an alternative to having an abortion.

Does this answer your question?

reply from: Tam

Hee, hee! (picturing Sigma crawling up an elephants leg with an evil grin and a microscopic erection)

You guys! Come on, now! I was eating my lunch while reading this (ok, admittedly not a good idea) and I almost spit pizza all over my computer.

As for ignoring my points about viability--well, don't you all know, the violinist argument is a FAMOUS argument! LOL That was pointed out to me by Sigma, with helpful advice to go look it up, as if I'd never in my life heard this preposterous thing. And THIS is the preposterous response I got!

LOL It involves "no violence" and of course because she was in this park at night, she was practically asking for it, anyway. Geez, Sigma, did she have a miniskirt on, too? As for the child, the child has "no existence in actuality." I am supposed to take this stuff seriously?! LOL

reply from: Sigma

Accept it or not, as you choose.

reply from: Tam

Accept it or not, as you choose.

You ACTUALLY believe that an unborn child has "no existence in actuality"? That is a phrase that has meaning for you, and you believe it applies to unborn children? That's what you're really saying, here? And you are surprised that no one is taking it seriously? Is that really what's going on?

Someone pinch me, I must be dreaming. In this nightmare, no one exists in the womb, and women walking alone in the dark can somehow get kidnapped, imprisoned, and surgically altered without any violence taking place! Surreal . . .

reply from: Tam

If it makes it easier, imagine that a woman fell asleep in a park that is known to have roving bands of people raping women and that the rape involves no violence but simply a gentle lovemaking. It does not change the argument.

P.S. To those who will jump the gun and start yelling at me that rape is inherently violent even if it's gentle and the woman is asleep--YEAH, that is MY point. My point is that if someone kidnaps her and imprisons her and surgically alters her physiology--that's a violent attack, even if they are really gentle and courteous while they're doing it.

reply from: Sigma

Accept it or not, as you choose.

reply from: galen

Sorry Sig, your actions and your arguments...are all over the place... I'll keep looking.

mary

reply from: Tam

LOL

Drop the ball or not, as you choose!

reply from: Sigma

Galen

As you wish. If I can clarify anything that seems confusing, let me know.

reply from: cali1981

Excellent point. I became pro-life after looking at the facts. Pro-choice people become pro-choice and then twist the facts.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics