You state that we "must" side with the possibility that it is life until proven otherwise. Why "must" we do that?
777, i get the distinct feeling of being baited, but i'll answer you anyway, because if it is life and it is terminated then it is killing an innocent human. unless you are a nihilist, killing innocent lives is wrong. what is so hard to understand ? best, surfer
Baited, no. If it is life, it would be murder, true. There is no proof it is life, so the point is mute. However, you are making an assumption that has no scientific basis to it. Why is that? When you state that we "must" act on a speculative nature in one direction over another, that is what is not clear. If we take a purely secular view, not a view of theology, we have to leave soul out of the argument. Leaving soul out of the argument, terminating a pregnancy doesn't mean that someone else won't get pregnant. From that perspective, you get into population dynamics and survival of the human species via reproduction, not the issue of whether or not terminating the existence of a fetus is right or wrong from a moral perspective. Given that we don't have a shortage of human beings at present, given that we don't need each and every pregnancy to come to fruition as a human being, I don't see where the government "must" allow all pregnancies to come to full term and result in birth over the right of a woman to make that choice.
because there is no proof, it MAY be murder. since it MAY be murder, the proper course of action is not to take that chance. this has nothing to do with souls or speculation, simply sound reasoning . best, surfer
Optional......throw in that these same "right to lifers" are almost 100% in favor of capital punishment, love guns (guns don't kill people, people kill...blah, blah), and gee, what do you have? (shh....let's keep it subtle). Don't have to say it. I don't want to be the one that is directly responsible for taking this thread into what it will surely become eventually anyway. But sure as hell, when the likes of Thunderbolt, and Max401 contribute their responses, we know where this will go. So I will try and dance around the issue rather than meet it head on. I will leave that for others. Let's just say that George W. said that he doesn't believe in abortion. But if HIS daughter was "in trouble" he would let HER have her choice. Good to have it both ways. Get your votes (not to mention the $ contributions) and have your family covered too. This "right to life" vs. "pro-choice" is really a political issue and not a real life case by case issue as it should be. Separate church and state, and there is no question about what a woman's rights are. Make no mistake. Just like "school vouchers", this is just an issue disguised and then used by (un-named) political extremists to subvert our constitution in the name of ....how can I say this?.....being more "American" than those that disagree with their views. Can't wait to get slammed about this post. I already know who will say what. I will get the usual "cut and paste" jobs. The quotes from some of our fellow ET members who's favorite "political pundits" will tell us how "pro-choice" people are "baby killers". Amazing how consistent "politics" determine how a women's right to her own body "should" be restricted. And as Optional so accurately stated, these "politicians" are virtually all males. Are there female "right to lifers"? Absolutely. But how many of them made their decision on their own. How many were not brought up (brainwashed) that way by family, church, etc. While there are countless women who are "pro-choice" and are so after breaking away from the way they were raised, is there a single "right to life" woman who decided to "think" that way after "breaking away" from an upbringing that was contrary? Show me one!!! (make her heterosexual...) Peace, Rs7
So, the entire foundation of your reason is that a fetus "may" be life, and hence we should make abortion illegal. Can you imagine a set of laws and government based on the unknown, and questions of something that "may" be the case, simply because they cannot be proven? That is non-sensical. Imagine all the laws that could be passed based on something that "may" happen, or "may" be harmful to human life. Lacking proof, lacking probability studies that show greater than a 50/50 chance, why give one side preferential treatment over another side......especially when that law denies the right to choice of what a woman does with her own body? Should we outlaw all guns because they "may" cause death? Should we outlaw all intoxicants because they "may" cause death? Should we outlaw air travel because the plane "may" crash and cause death? We have to have laws based on what we know, not what we "may" know. That is the basis of law, making decisions based on knowledge, precedent, and common sense, not speculation.
777, There is no doubt that the fetus is life. After all, there is life in the cells of the phlegm that you cough up and spit out. The question is does the fetus legally constitute an individual, can it be accorded personhood and human rights that separate it from those of the mother? If so, when, from the point of conception on, does it arrive at this status? If there is a discrete point in gestation that marks the onset of personhood? Can abortion prior to this point not be regarded as the taking of an "unborn life"?
you are fucking crazy man. Or are you a woman? by your logic, if I don't shed any tears over killing everyone, it's ok. I'm not wrong because it's basically ok with everyone who I think it should be ok with, ME. that is the most selfish statement I have ever heard. Whether the fetus is a person or not, you don't care, it's just whether it suits you and everyone else whose opinions agree with you. I hope you aren't close to anyone, or if you are, they read that, so they can get as far away from you as possible. A fetus is not a part of a womens body. It's a body of another person growing inside her body. If you can't see that, it's only because your selfishness covers your eyes. Women who do abort their baby's do so out of selfishness. Next your going to tell me, what's wrong with being selfish. You won't know until you end up on the other side of a selfish person's actions of killing you. Entry: abort Function: verb Definition: terminate Synonyms: fail, miscarry, stop, expel, terminate Antonyms: deliver Concept: killing Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0) Copyright © 2003 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
Your outrage at Daniel_M is not surprising. His is a a radical view. However, to regard a woman's choice to abort as merely selfish is simplistic and immature. Indulge me in a hypothetical scenario Lundy. You are a young man correct? Okay, suppose there is that very selfish woman out there and you are sleeping with her. You impregnate her and she insists on an abortion which you oppose. Are you prepared to take offer full responsibility to raise that child in the attempt to block the abortion? Are you prepared to go to the extreme of selflessness and single parent raise your child from birth whose mother will cede custody to you willingly? While I am a male and a father and I have never been party to a abortion nor an unwanted pregnancy, I imagine the decision to abort can be simply selfish in few cases, but in most, it is probably a complicated and difficult decision by women (and thier mates) in thier family planning.
Radical? The very definition implies it is not commonplace, that it is away from the mainstream. As we know, this supposedly "radical" view is in fact commonplace, verified by the thousands of abortions that take place each year. It IS simplistic! What is immature is the emotional level of the people having sex without considering the possibility of conception. And you have conveniently chosen not to mention a most important option: carrying the baby to term and then putting it up for adoption.