Abortion revisited

[Guest American Woman]

So you guys agree to re-open the debate? Or not? To determine once and for all if this human fetus has the same rights as you and I? Yes or no.

Of course it doesn't have the same rights. You already pointed out that the rights of one cannot infringe on the rights of anyone else, and that's exactly what forcing an unwanted pregnancy does. Someone's "rights" are going to have to be considered over the others' when there is a conflict of interest, so to speak, and in this instance, the living, breathing, independent human being'a rights take precedence over the dependent, non-viable embryo/fetus.

[dre]

So if you guys are all confident in your claims that these babies aren't human, then why do you resist having an all out debate on it? Why are you so worried about that?

We had a debate on this... about 50 years ago.

And the SCC ruled on it as well...

"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."

We would need to ammend the constitution to ban or severely limit abortion. Not gonna be easy to do when the womb-goons only make up about 1/4 of the population.

This is going exactly nowhere.

[Guest American Woman]

But in this hypothetical, I could easily say, "the purpose of this person refusing the donation is because he wants to end the life."

Really? You could easily say that?? Without feeling like an ignoramus?

The point, as cybercoma has pointed out, is that no one should be legally compelled to use their body to keep another person alive; and really, that renders the distinctions you (correctly) point out as moot, in face of the larger issue.

The distinctions are far from moot - which is why there are abortions laws and abortion debates - while there are none regarding refusal to be an organ donor.

[Peter F]

So you guys agree to re-open the debate? Or not? To determine once and for all if this human fetus has the same rights as you and I? Yes or no.

Its being debated at this very moment. I'm surprised you havn't noticed. and nobody said 'yes' and nobody said 'no'. Permission not required.

[betsy]

Of course it doesn't have the same rights. You already pointed out that the rights of one cannot infringe on the rights of anyone else, and that's exactly what forcing an unwanted pregnancy does.

If the fetus is deemd human, then it has the same rights as everyone else. More so when he did not have any choice at all in being inside his mother's tummy, whereas his mother had already exercised her freedom of choice, and the fetus is the result of that choice.

The mother's freedom of choice cannot infringe on the baby's right to protection.

Someone's "rights" are going to have to be considered over the others' when there is a conflict of interest, so to speak, and in this instance, the living, breathing, independent human being'a rights take precedence over the dependent, non-viable embryo/fetus.

But that's the whole point of the debate, isn't it? To determine with clarity and surety whether the fetus is human or not.

So again, why are you so afraid to open up the debate?

Edited May 27, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

We had a debate on this... about 50 years ago.

And the SCC ruled on it as well...

50 years ago. Without the modern technology and the advancement of science as we know it now.

In other words, the ruling could've been based on ignorance.

You surely wouldn't support "wrongful conviction," of anyone, would you? Just because someone was convicted of a crime 50 years ago, you'd let him go to his execution even though modern technology could prove he may be innocent? This feels like we're in CHINA! or IRAN!

We would need to ammend the constitution to ban or severely limit abortion.

Well we ammended the constitution to give rights to mothers the license to kill, didn't we? So that's sooooo lame. What are you so afraid of about re-opening the debate?

Edited May 27, 2012 by betsy

[bleeding heart]

Really? You could easily say that?? Without feeling like an ignoramus?

Why, yes, American Woman. Without feeling like an ignoramus. You noticed I wrote "ut in this hypothetical," didn't you?

Or in your rush to toss insults around, did you miss the first, and crucial, clause?

The distinctions are far from moot - which is why there are abortions laws and abortion debates - while there are none regarding refusal to be an organ donor.

There are lots of bad laws, and lots of poor debates.

Edited May 27, 2012 by bleeding heart

[betsy]

I'd like to see a class-action lawsuit against us for all the babies we've murdered without any qualms.

Someday that will come I bet.

[bleeding heart]

I'd like to see a class-action lawsuit against us for all the babies we've murdered without any qualms.

Someday that will come I bet.

And who's going to be sued, exactly? Millions of women, millions of their men as enablers, massive numbers of health-care professionals, and scores of politicians and lawmakers?

And who is going to receive the money?

All the righteous souls who oppose abortion?

[betsy]

And who's going to be sued, exactly? Millions of women, millions of their men as enablers, massive numbers of health-care professionals, and scores of politicians and lawmakers?

And who is going to receive the money?

All the righteous souls who oppose abortion?

What can a debate do but prove whether the fetus is human or not. Why won't you support the re-opening of the debate?

[bleeding heart]

What can ignoring responses to one's own remarks (even as one quotes those responses) do but prove who is an honest debater or not? Why do you not support honest debating practices?

Edited May 27, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

Why, yes, American Woman. Without feeling like an ignoramus. You noticed I wrote "ut in this hypothetical," didn't you?

Yes, Bloodyminded, I did notice that. But not only was it a ridiculous hypothetical, the fact that you answered a reality which applies to all abortions with a hypothetical that perhaps, might, maybe at some point in time apply to a bizarre situation regarding organ donation speaks volumes as to the weakness of your attempt to present the two situations as comparable. I thought perhaps, in hindsight, you'd be able to see that.

There are lots of bad laws, and lots of poor debates.

lots of poor debates

They say that recognizing the problem is half the battle, so perhaps there's hope for you yet.

[bleeding heart]

Yes, Bloodyminded, I did notice that. But not only was it a ridiculous hypothetical, the fact that you answered a reality which applies to all abortions with a hypothetical that perhaps, might, maybe at some point in time apply to a bizarre situation regarding organ donation speaks volumes as to the weakness of your attempt to present the two situations as comparable. I thought perhaps, in hindsight, you'd be able to see that.

Once again: a person should not be compelled to keep another person alive through enforced will of others upon her own body.

The crucial point all along, and one which you seem unwilling to address.

It is the entire point. That you think the hypothetical ridiculous doesn't matter in the face of this fact.

I used the hypothetical only to explain something to you. But that's fine; never mind the analogy. Delete it from your sensibilities. If it's bad, or if you think it's bad, never mind it. It doesn't affect the matter to which it was meant to point, not one iota.

The fact (with which you agree at least up to a point) remains what it is.

lots of poor debates

They say that recognizing the problem is half the battle, so perhaps there's hope for you yet.

Then you're quite hopeless, AW.

Edited May 27, 2012 by bleeding heart

[-TSS-]

I'd like to see a class-action lawsuit against us for all the babies we've murdered without any qualms.

Someday that will come I bet.

This is the main reason why there can never be a level headed debate on this issue as one side of the argument is so fond of such emotive language using expressions like "babies we've murdered" etc.

[guyser]

To determine with clarity and surety whether the fetus is human or not.

So again, why are you so afraid to open up the debate?

Already been done. A fetus is not a human in the eyes of the law.

I get it, you dont like it.

Why are you so afraid to abide by the outcome of the debate that has occurred?

Because you dont like it...and if it is debated again,youll still whine for another debate.

[guyser]

50 years ago. Without the modern technology and the advancement of science as we know it now.

In other words, the ruling could've been based on ignorance.

Uh oh....someone slipped up here.

So betsy , tell me when was the bible written? I am unsure but I think it was more than 50 yrs ago.

Tech and science advancement have occurred since it was written...least I think so.

Is it possible that the bible 'could've been based on ignorance' ?

[guyser]

I'd like to see a class-action lawsuit against us for all the babies we've murdered without any qualms.

Someday that will come I bet.

I doubt it.

The CMA is pretty powerful.

The only who could get charged are the Drs. Why you hatin' on Docs?

[dre]

50 years ago. Without the modern technology and the advancement of science as we know it now.

In other words, the ruling could've been based on ignorance.

Not at all... the ruling was based on this...

"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."

That was true 50 years ago, its true now, and it will be true in another 1000 years as well. And lets not forget the fact that your stance on this comes from a book written by Romans TWO THOUSAND years ago.

[bleeding heart]

Not at all... the ruling was based on this...

That was true 50 years ago, its true now, and it will be true in another 1000 years as well. And lets not forget the fact that your stance on this comes from a book written by Romans TWO THOUSAND years ago.

And their views on women were as...well, as inferiors, in most ways.

Some things don't change that much.

[dre]

I doubt it.

The CMA is pretty powerful.

The only who could get charged are the Drs. Why you hatin' on Docs?

Not to mention the fact that to successfully launch and win a lawsuit you generally have to alledge some sort of activity that violates the law.

Minor little snag

[bleeding heart]

Not to mention the fact that to successfully launch and win a lawsuit you generally have to alledge some sort of activity that violates the law.

Minor little snag

Pedantic, really.

[dre]

Pedantic, really.

Stinking little details!

[guyser]

Minor little snag

She did say 'someday' so ....

[dre]

She did say 'someday' so ....

I suppose thats true. someday womens rights could be set back to the point where the state siezes their right to make reproductive decisions from women and their doctors so that politicians living thousands of miles away can make them. Hell maybe well go back to publically stoning women that cheat on their spouses too!

Maybe well have a national womb registry and an army of beaurocrats to make sure that each sexual encounter leads to live birth

But heres the thing... I believe that these decisions should be made by women and their doctors every bit as much as social conservatives believe that abortion is murder. And I think if this comes down to a fight that womb-control advocates are gonna get the living shit beaten out of them.

Edited May 27, 2012 by dre

[cybercoma]

The point, as cybercoma has pointed out, is that no one should be legally compelled to use their body to keep another person alive; and really, that renders the distinctions you (correctly) point out as moot, in face of the larger issue.

You get a gold star or cookie. Your choice.