Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by QGator2414, Dec 24, 2013.
The pro-abortion position is way more religious, based solely on philosophy. It's not even close.
Big difference between 'life' and 'a life'. Conveniently.
It is unquestionably life. What kind of life? Young human life.
Left to the ordinary course of business, "that" will become a young boy or girl no differently than a young man becomes an old man -- that right there is a human being, just at the earliest stages of development. Nobody is going to apply quadrotriticale power or dihydrous monoxide or wave chicken bones over a woman's stomach and turn "that" into a person, because "that" is already intrinsically a human life. "That" can't decide to change course and become a paramecium, or spontaneously grow to be a giraffe or some other species.
Human life, right there.
Even if it is human life, why is it granted the special right of dominion over another human? And other stages of human life, we are completely dependent on others for care (newborn and often end-stages). Yet no other human can make the claim on another that a specific individual must care for them for any length of time, and there is no other choice. Even the mother of a completely helpless newborn can give the baby up for adoption and rid herself of any parental obligations and rights.
So why should a blastophere/fetus/unborn baby get the right of dominion over the mother? Because it's life is dependent upon the mother? Ok. But what about cases where the mother has no desire to care for the life? What about cases where the mother has no desire to care for the life and didn't chose to have sex willingly (rape)? And what right do we have to tell otherwise grown women that regardless of circumstance, as soon as they get pregnant, their body now belongs to the life inside them and they have no choice?
When it comes right down to it, abortion is still a case about competing rights. And as long as there are unwanted pregnancies that creates a demand for abortion, there will be people who will supply them, legal or not. And I've always thought a better way to combat the issue is not attempt to attack supply, but lower the demand. Imagine a world where there is little need to picket abortion clinics because there aren't any customers, and every woman who got pregnant is happy and excited to become a mother? Yet, the pro-life focus is rarely, if ever, on the demand side, and is often against sex education that can prevent unwanted pregnancy.
"Special dominion"? Such hogwash. Boo hoo, the cycle of human biology as a mammal comes with some built in baggage. Merely requiring that such life not be exterminated isn't anything other than the special dominion we all enjoy over each other, across the full spectrum of human dependency. Feel free to call it a competing right, but understand that it is not a fair competition -- the life right beats the convenience right.
Easy for someone to say who has never had an unwanted pregnancy and biologically, never will have one (assuming you are male). And you still have yet to answer these fundamental questions: What about cases where the mother has no desire to care for the life? What about cases where the mother has no desire to care for the life and didn't chose to have sex willingly (rape)?
Since you imply that men aren't qualified or eligible to address this subject, I offer two witnesses. The first was a rape victim who became pregnant, the second a child who was conceived by rape:
"I am the single mother of a beautiful, fun-loving, bright young woman of 16 years of age. This Easter we celebrated the 17th anniversary of her conception. Raped by an acquaintance, my first consideration was abortion even though I had spoken out against it all my life... I considered abortion until I [determined it wasn't] the right thing. I perused adoption and chose parents to give my baby to. I changed my mind and chose motherhood. I have provided, educated, clothed, fed, nursed, counseled, encouraged, and loved with all my heart the daughter of a man who violated the last virtue I was cherishing, my virginity... When interviewed about my experience several years ago, I was asked what I would a tell a young woman contemplating an abortion. After some careful consideration and a determination never to water down the truth I replied, "It is the hardest thing in the world to choose what you know is right. Being a single parent is no more easy than living with the haunting memory of aborting your child. No matter how hard you wish, either way your life will never be the same. Both have their pains and their struggles, however, only one choice afforded me a profound peace... Never have we been in want. Never have I regretted my choice. The scars of my experience have been healed... we show no signs of lack nor neglect..."
"My mother was a 14-year-old girl who was raped, and she tried to have an abortion. The only reason I am alive today is because the doctor miscalculated her due date and thought she was too far in the pregnancy to have the abortion, when in reality he was a month off (this actually happened twice). It pains me every time I hear even die hard pro-lifers say "except in the case of rape." I know it is traumatizing for a girl or woman that is raped to have to carry a child, but it is no more traumatizing than someone who gets shot during a violent attack and has to deal with those wounds. Counseling and therapy can help heal the trauma, but the trauma will be there whether she has the abortion or not, and the abortion could even make it worse. It has caused me so much anxiety over the years to think that many pro-lifers would have approved of my mother's abortion. By the way, she gave me up for adoption, and my adoptive parents were never able to have children. "
And I'm happy they are pleased with the decision they each made and it worked out great in the end. But why because two women made a decision to carry to term and it worked out, should all women be forced to make the same decision? Should two women have the power to speak for all women? And are these two cases representative of all cases of women making the difficult decision to carry or abort? Of course not.
A human life...
... Emotional duress, psychological stress...
Lemme think here...
The mother has no obligation to raise a child from rape, there are sanctuary laws, etc, she can walk away clean. That child did her no wrong, let alone one punishable by death.
To your first paragraph, I simply say that decisions have consequences. With the exception of the rape victim (I'll get to that in a minute) no one gets pregnant without engaging in activity known to cause pregnancy. Sadly, 3/4 or more of abortions are admittedly sought for simple convenience:
"On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner" Guttmacher Institute
Why should a new human life be exterminated due to lack of responsibility by or convenience of another?
Regarding victims of rape who become pregnant, it represents less than 1% of pregnancies. I searched a variety of resources that offered different numbers, but all were below 1%. While I'm opposed to abortion in any circumstances, it is interesting that you focus so much of your argument on this tiny number of abortions. I really don't think you have a compelling case to permit abortion for the other 99%.
To answer the question, why should a human life be exterminated due to lack of responsibility or convenience, the answer goes back to why should the baby have dominion over the mother? I believe no human should ever have the right to ever force another to care for it without choice. Sure, a woman could carry to term and then abdicate rights, but that still doesn't account for the 9 months the woman is pregnant.
I'll ask the questions again, because I have yet to get a sufficient answer: What do we do with cases where the mother has no desire to care for the life? What about cases where the mother has no desire to care for the life and didn't chose to have sex willingly (rape)?
I believe we have free will over our own bodies and yes, that means others will make choices we don't like. But we can't force them to always choose what we would do or what we want them to do. And one of those choices is abortion.
And yes, I know, pregnancy from rape accounts for less than 1% of all abortions. But I'm using the extreme case for a reason. The woman raped didn't choose to have sex and get pregnant, yet, many pro-life people here would have her give up her body for the child without giving her any other options. I ask you, how would you feel if you were violated in the worst possible way, and as a result, had to care for someone for nine months. And there was a possible out for caring for the person, but people told you that it was morally wrong for you to take the out, and that you have to suffer the consequences of other people's actions?
Again, not that I say pregnant rape victims should get an abortion. I believe it's their choice, and if asked, I would advocate for keeping the child. But ultimately, it's not my choice, nor my body, nor my life.
Adoption gets a very bad rap in this country because the fringe left media that controls the airwaves has made us so impulsive and short-sighted. It's all about me and it's all about now. Who cares about who will care for me tomorrow, I want my (fill in the blank today). Other countries are much more open to adoption and less open to abortion because they actually think about the long-term consequences. Even Russian leadership is now seeing it. There's apparently more thinking on behalf of the leadership in Russia on this subject than there is in the US.
Think about that. We're as dumbed down as dumb down gets on this subject. Even moreso than race. Pro-aborts consider ultrasound images to be "traps."
It's unquestionably alive (as is any cell), but reasonably people can argue whether it's a life.
So you are now Pro life?
Can you name what else a zygote becomes if not human....given a chance? If you are an infant would you like the opportunity to become an adolescent?
1) the premise is absurd, because none of us are allowed to kill other people, no matter how dependent, for our convenience -- everyone is subject to that "special dominion". You haven't identified anything unique about a child in the womb. Or,
2) sure, damn right, special dominion -- the child's life right *properly* supersedes the mother's other, non-life interests and we have nothing to discuss until we hit that.Harry Potter 'neither can live while the other survives' threshold.
3) you are essentially defining the biological cycle of mammals as unjust, which... cool story bro? So what? We can't get the Supreme Court to order it changed, so unless you are wanting some sort of asexual scifi dystopia, what of it?
We tell her she doesn't have to care for the child once they are rid of each other and there is no legal penalty. We, however gently we have to, explain that her trouble and inconvenience are not worth more than the other human's life. Their situation is, to put it in arch, comedic terms, like one of those scenarios where two people are stuck handcuffed to each other, an abortion being the equivalent of one killing another and sawing off their hand rather than endure each other until the key is found.
A woman is up all night with a crying, sick baby, rocking and swaying and rocking and swaying... Then remembers she has free will over her own body and immediately drops her tired arms to her side. We good with that? Or is her moral obligation the same in either case, to see the child safely into her crib first?
Hard cases make bad law. The best answer is that the pregnancy and term is just an unavoidable part of the trauma and recovery, the way someone's gut spend nine months in traction after getting hit by a drunk driver. Killing the child to magically speed it up is like killing your physical therapist if it would magically make your legs and back better.
There is no "her body" at issue here. The concept is to protect the other human life. All human killing could be defined quite easily as one person exercising control of her own body over the life of someone else, there is nothing special about the unborn child's case.
I don't know whether to pity or curse the pro-abortionists on this thread. How twisted must one be to value a woman's nine months of "suffering" over what could be, statistically speaking, a 75+ year life of another human? I'm not an absolutist on this issue and I certainly have sympathy for any woman who is pregnant with an unwanted child. So, in the spirit of the left's constant call for compromise, let's all agree that abortion is only legal in the cases of proven rape or incest. If the pro-abortionists on this thread cannot accept that compromise, then they are shown to be equally extreme as the pro-lifers that they stereotype.
The baby doesn't have "dominion" over the mother. You act as if the infant is some kind of invading alien that just showed up in her body to start changing her hormones and body shape. The woman exercised her "free will" in deciding to have sex, of which one possible outcome is pregnancy.
Her free will decision placed her in the position of carrying a human life. As a consequence of that decision, she now carries another human life for which has responsibility. Simple.
Life isn't that simple. People have the freedom to resolve life's dilemmas in a simple fashion if they so choose.....by the same token, that same freedom extends to each individual to make their own decisions, whether you agree or not.