~* Abortion debate and poll *~ (crime, claim, capital, society)

[GregW]

Saganista - I applaud your valiant attempts to use science, thought and logic to explain a rational position supporting a adult woman's right to control her own body. I would also like to mention that science, though and logic is irrelevant to what is a male domination, personal power and a dogmatic religious issue.

The opponents of choice all seem to base their argument on the right of a male to impregnate a woman and create a child without the woman having any say in the issue. Even if the woman is a teen impregnated by a priest she still has to carry the fetus to term. As far as I can tell the Catholics believe that a woman is only a vessel of God’s will in these matters. As Catholicism is a very male dominated religion this, at least, makes sense. Islam shares the same tradition of keeping women around as domestic servants and propagation units. I do not agree with either of these religions.

From my point of view I would not tolerate anyone telling me what to do without using force (not likely to succeed) or money to make it worth my while. I consider it fair that I do not tell any woman what to do with her body just because I am a male. As using force to get your way is categorically monopolized by the state in our society and few, if any, (debatable point) women will carry a pregnancy for money, the only way for a male to procreate is to convince a woman to carry the fetus to term. Force may not be used. Legal force may not either.

To summarize the fate of the fetus is almost irrelevant in these matters. The fetus is only an excuse for legalizing the use of force to insure the reduction of women from independent free human beings to physical slaves and lessened political citizens. All this damage is justified, in the mind of an insecure male anyway, as away for him to brag to other men about the power of his penis.

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by GregW

Saganista - I applaud your valiant attempts to use science, thought and logic to explain a rational position supporting a adult woman's right to control her own body. I would also like to mention that science, though and logic is irrelevant to what is a male domination, personal power and a dogmatic religious issue.

The scientific community much like the rest of society is divided as to when life is started. So if you believe life starts at a conception you think society is male power hungry society based on a religious issue. that is nuts.
Conversely then if you think its legal to kill because you can choose to kill are you a female power hungry based society based on devil worship?

The opponents of choice all seem to base their argument on the right of a male to impregnate a woman and create a child without the woman having any say in the issue. Even if the woman is a teen impregnated by a priest she still has to carry the fetus to term. As far as I can tell the Catholics believe that a woman is only a vessel of God’s will in these matters. As Catholicism is a very male dominated religion this, at least, makes sense. Islam shares the same tradition of keeping women around as domestic servants and propagation units. I do not agree with either of these religions.

The oppenents of life base their arguement on the fact a woman can kill whether the man wants her to kill or not. When did murder become a religious issue? If you beleive life starts at conception than abortion is murder. I do not need any religion to tell me denying life is bad.

From my point of view I would not tolerate anyone telling me what to do without using force (not likely to succeed) or money to make it worth my while. I consider it fair that I do not tell any woman what to do with her body just because I am a male. As using force to get your way is categorically monopolized by the state in our society and few, if any, (debatable point) women will carry a pregnancy for money, the only way for a male to procreate is to convince a woman to carry the fetus to term. Force may not be used. Legal force may not either.

From a fetus point of view your mother has a right to kill you.

To summarize the fate of the fetus is almost irrelevant in these matters. The fetus is only an excuse for legalizing the use of force to insure the reduction of women from independent free human beings to physical slaves and lessened political citizens. All this damage is justified, in the mind of an insecure male anyway, as away for him to brag to other men about the power of his penis.

So you think the fate of a life is irrelevant. Pro life thinks it is,
So you think being a mother is the same as making them slaves, you do not value woman much to demean those woman who think a fetus is a life and worth savings. I value woman who choose not to kill at the same level as those that choose to kill

[GregW]

In any case it is her decision. Not yours, not mine and not the laws.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

when you premediate denying someon life it is murder.

(20 - x)

[saganista]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

Correct so its ok to kill the most innocent members of society.

Fetuses lack the capacity for innocence. For one thing, it would contradict the admittedly silly notion of original sin, but more importantly innocence implies capacity along a scale of guilt and innocence that mindless, thoughtless things cannot navigate upon. You may as well speak of the innocent gravel lying in my driveway. The concept is meaningless, but that gravel has every bit as much capacity for innocence as an embryo or fetus does. You are guilty again of seeing things in fetuses that are not in fact there. The fetus of your mind is an ideal...not an actuality.

Originally Posted by wjtwet

Because we do not know how or what they feel when their life is denied we should kill them and justify it it by saying it ok. Sorry not much of an argueemnt there.

Even wild speculation in this area is fraud. Fetuses simply have no capacity at all for any sort of thing that you or I would recognize as feelings. Like any amoeba, a fetus will respond to noxious stimulii, but they have no more capacity than an amoeba for even the very lowest orders of thought of any kind.

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by saganista

If a stranger were to enter unbidden into the personal domain of my living room and credibly threaten to do physical harm to me of the sort that a pregnancy would do, I would, under the laws of almost all states, have the right to use up to lethal force in defending myself against the intents of that intruder. Why should a fetus entering unbidden into the personal domain of my uterus be treated any differently?

First of all you certainly would have the right to defend yoruself if someone enters your home to do you harm.
The fetus should have the same right to defend itself to someone entering his/her hom ein order to kill it. The problem is you can defend yourself , the fetus is not yet capable of defending itself from someone trying to kill it. So those of us that believe the fetus has a right to live defend it.

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by saganista

Fetuses lack the capacity for innocence. For one thing, it would contradict the admittedly silly notion of original sin, but more importantly innocence implies capacity along a scale of guilt and innocence that mindless, thoughtless things cannot navigate upon. You may as well speak of the innocent gravel lying in my driveway. The concept is meaningless, but that gravel has every bit as much capacity for innocence as an embryo or fetus does. You are guilty again of seeing things in fetuses that are not in fact there. The fetus of your mind is an ideal...not an actuality.


Even wild speculation in this area is fraud. Fetuses simply have no capacity at all for any sort of thing that you or I would recognize as feelings. Like any amoeba, a fetus will respond to noxious stimulii, but they have no more capacity than an amoeba for even the very lowest orders of thought of any kind.

The problem is we do not know what a fetus feels. so you side with the kill it mode believing it is not a human life. I side with it is a human life you are denying the right to live. It is pr oven fetus react to music food, so you can not say what a unborn feels.
I am positive as partial birth abortion is done and the bay gets its brains sucked out of its head, it feels something in those last moments.
If it makes you feel better to discount that its a human you are denying life to by saying it can not feel then it is your right to hide behind that

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by GregW

In any case it is her decision. Not yours, not mine and not the laws.

yes it is the mothers right under current law to kill her own unborn. However that does not make it right

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by saganista

(20 - x)

49 million denied life in a genocide

[saganista]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

As i said in my post the gap between our views lies totally in what you think life is.

You simply ignore all I wrote and restate your original position. Why is that?

Originally Posted by wjtwet

The moment the sperm meets the egg a living organism that will be a human is evolving changing and growing. At that moment life has started.

No, human life quite clearly existed prior to that in both the sperm and ovum. Unless of course you wish already to depart from the well-established reports of science. Nothing magical happens an any "moment of conception". All of even the potential of a zygote was contained already in the cells from which it was derived.

Originally Posted by wjtwet

You seem to value certain life more than others and hide behind your shield that a mother has the right to kill.

Let's first be clear that arguments against abortion were just as poor prior to 1973 as they are today. Let's second note that a woman has the right not to be pregnant. This is her individual right, and you aren't allowed to meddle with it. You may not compel a woman either to become or to remain pregnant against her wishes. She may use such techniques as she feels are appropriate in avoiding pregnancy. Should she feel those might have been compromised, she may turn to Plan-B. Should that fail, she may resort to a medical abortion or at her election to a surgical abortion. No unwanted interloper, be it you or any fetus-from-the-blue, has any right that trumps a woman's right to decide for herself whether and when she will reproduce.

Originally Posted by wjtwet

We can agree a fetus is not like an baby, a bay is not like a child , i child is not like a teenager, a teenager is not like an adult. But you are still comparing humans to humans.

And you are again/still ignoring the blatant qualitative difference between a fetus and an actual sentient human adult, as well as the blatant lack of any such difference between a zygote and the cells it was derived from. You are basically ignoring whatever would keep you from arriving at a pre-ordained conclusion. You are free to do that, and to apply the probably illogical results in your own life. You are not free to do that on behalf of any others.

Originally Posted by wjtwet

Comparing humans in different stages of life does not cease any stage from being human.

No one has claimed anything but that all of the stages named were examples of human life. Mere human life however is plainly not a sufficient grounds for protection. All manner of mere human life is routinely excised and discarded without giving it a second thought. From cuticle removed during a manicure to blood samples and biopsies, to polyps removed during a colonoscopy, to abandoned or unwanted product at an IVF clininc. You'll need something more than simple human life to justify anything even remotely resembling the special status that you wish to assign.

Originally Posted by wjtwet

When you deny 49 million their right to live it based on their cultural development you have a genocide.

Cultural development? No one is claiming that fetuses are an inferior sort of people. Why, some of my best friends were once fetuses. The claim is that fetuses are not people at all, in that they share absolutely nothing with actual people except the same commonality of cell properties that is also shared by everything from cuticles to polyps and beyond. An acorn is not an oak tree, and even if there is no place like home, a set of blueprints and a pile of lumber do not equate to one.