Who has the right to life?

[sharkman]

I have answered several of your questions: When does life begin, why not leave the past in the past (referring to Eugenics), whether I'm pro-life or not, whether the fetus has the right not to be tampered with by parents who want to make alterations that could determine the future of that child, and where I got the idea that Einstein supported Eugenics. I though you were an even handed person who was willing to expound on many topics, but for some reason you seem unwilling except to mock my question.

And I'm guilty of bitching, eh? This is a forum. People will explore ideas and thoughts that might not be comfortable for you. I have answered some of your questions that were uncomfortable for me, but you won't take mine seriously. Whatever.

[WIP]

I have answered several of your questions: When does life begin, why not leave the past in the past (referring to Eugenics), whether I'm pro-life or not, whether the fetus has the right not to be tampered with by parents who want to make alterations that could determine the future of that child, and where I got the idea that Einstein supported Eugenics. I though you were an even handed person who was willing to expound on many topics, but for some reason you seem unwilling except to mock my question.

And I'm guilty of bitching, eh? This is a forum. People will explore ideas and thoughts that might not be comfortable for you. I have answered some of your questions that were uncomfortable for me, but you won't take mine seriously. Whatever.

You have answered nothing except the extraneous points you created by invoking Einstein and the Nazis! It's all fine and well to bitch, but if you're going to make a charge of moral relativism, you better have something to back it up! I don't know how much more clearly I could have made the point that I did not accept advanced genetic manipulations that could allow parents to choose the sex of their child, provide an already healthy fetus with enhancements.

Now, aside from stating that genetic enhancement is equivalent to eugenics, you didn't specify whether that means a blanket ban on all forms of gene therapy that would not only include genetic enhancements, but would also include gene manipulations that might prevent Down's Syndrome, hemophilia, muscular dystrophy etc.. The opening post, 26 pages ago quoted from an article calling for advanced genetic screening for pregnant women so that they could identify genetic abnormalities such as Down's Syndrome earlier.....and many would obviously choose to abort the unhealthy fetus; so would a gene therapy that removes the additional genes in chromosome 21, which causes the disease, be accepted by the pro-life viewpoint, since it would fix an abnormality that might otherwise lead to an abortion? Would the pro-life movement distinguish between these therapies and the ones used to provide a genetic advantage:

In fact, if gene therapy lives up to its promise, parents may someday be able to go beyond weeding out undesirable traits and start actually inserting the genes they want--perhaps even genes that have been crafted in a lab. Before the new millennium is many years old, parents may be going to fertility clinics and picking from a list of options the way car buyers order air conditioning and chrome-alloy wheels. "It's the ultimate shopping experience: designing your baby," says biotechnology critic Jeremy Rifkin, who is appalled by the prospect. "In a society used to cosmetic surgery and psychopharmacology, this is not a big step."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,989987,00.html

[sharkman]

If you are going to genocide parts of a generation - there is one rule..let all live or destroy all life..there is no grey area..seeing that human beings are a greyish bunch - some gifted in certain areas and retarded in others..who is anyone to judge who is to live and who is to die?

It seems that is what it has come to Oleg, and whether people can wrap their heads around it or not, it cheapens life.

[sharkman]

Ok I'll bite...

1. a woman does not decide if the law says the fetus has rights equal to that of a born person -- the law decides.

2. She CAN say "I'm one week pregnant with a baby!" then turn around a month later and say "I am going to abort this fetus". If the language she uses makes her feel better about her decision who are we to condem her?

When I was fourteen I had the cells growing inside of me removed... they were three/four weeks into their evolution into a human being. Happily it will never know. Happily, my young self got to graduate highschool, party, go to college, get married, get divorced, have a career, have a baby (on my timetable, when I was ready) and meet the man of my dreams.

So why would you deny a fourteen year old the right to have a good life? Is her life worth less (in your opinion) than that of the fetus?

In nature, if the lion pride is starving, the lionesses eat before the cubs... as the lioness can always have more cubs.

ROOOAAR!

In catching up on some reading, I saw your post and thought I'd respond at this late date.

1. In this point you quoted me saying, "that laws which say a woman can decide the baby inside her is a life, and then one month later decide it is not is deplorable."

You then say in response to this, "a woman does not decide if the law says the fetus has rights equal to that of a born person -- the law decides. "

I don't know why you can't see this, but your comment does not disagree with mine. The part where I say the law on this is deplorable, the only part where we seem to disagree, you make no comment.

2. On your second point, you also post a remark that does not refute with what you object to in what I've said. I'm not saying a woman can't change her mind under the law. I'm saying the cells in her body are either a life or nothing. They can not be life 2 months in and then a tumor 4 months in according to common sense. The law allows this, but those who are able to separate emotionally charged feelings from the issue can see that common sense is not so common in this area of the law.

That you had an abortion at 14, or whether I would force a 14 year old to have a baby are foolish attempts at justifying taking a life, but what is done is done and I'm not going to bother with strawman arguments. The fact remains that our laws permit what is considered a life by the mother become a tumor to be removed simply because the mother changes her mind. It is a sad state of affairs all done for convenience sake.

[Drea]

. The fact remains that our laws permit what is considered a life by the mother become a tumor to be removed simply because the mother changes her mind. It is a sad state of affairs all done for convenience sake.

It's rarely a case of the woman "changing her mind" as though she is deciding what to where that morning.

You make it sound as though it's an easy decision. It isn't. Many women agonize over it and never forgive themselves. Many women abort because it just isn't feasible for them to have a child at that time. Many are very sad that they are unable to have that child. Of course there are always idiots... I knew a young woman (roughly same time I had mine) who had 4 abortions. Now that is stupidity. We labelled her a slut of course (that's what teens do!)

I, luckily was so young that the thought rarely crosses my mind. I did not agonize over the decision, but many do. I have long ago forgiven my 14 year old self and I am sure I thanked my mother at least 1500 times throughout my life for standing beside me on that decision.

Bottom line is that the option to have an abortion is legal and should stay that way. The rights of the human outweigh the rights of the human-to-be in my opinion (and the opinion of the law).