Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My friend Pleroo otoh would have us scale back those protections of children who are already born . . . for valid reasons I suspect. We indeed have gone overboard in legislating our lives in our supposedly free society. Bureaucrats are notoriously incompetent (and sometimes just evil) in their administration of those same laws. So I am sympathetic to Pleroo's point.
To be clear, my point was that Annie's seeming concern about infringement on the rights of mothers only applies to them before the birth of their children. I am curious as to why she and others are complacent about any such government policing and intrusion post-birth, but are incensed by the possibility of it pre-birth.
To say that we shouldn't have a law criminalizing the murder of children pre-birth because it could lead to other laws which will infringe on the freedom of parents is an inconsistent argument for those who seem to have no problem with having those freedoms stripped from them post-birth.
Personally, I have a huge issue with passing laws which place too much control in the hands of government. But the right not to have one's life ended by someone within our own society is a most basic right, no matter what stage of development a person is at, and I do not fully understand the position of those who do not wish to protect that right for children pre-birth.
As to the question of the o.p. I am no longer a religious person, but my feelings about abortion have not changed. My opposition to abortion was never about religion, but simply about a conviction that the pre-born are human and human life is precious.
As to the question of the o.p. I am no longer a religious person, but my feelings about abortion have not changed. My opposition to abortion was never about religion, but simply about a conviction that the pre-born are human and human life is precious.
Religious people have it right whether they understand the issue or not...Highly intelligent people also have it right..both who are anti-abortion have it right- Those with less intelligent or people who have never thought for themselves are pro-abortion..It's really quite simple- Low IQ- pro-abortion--- Higher IQ...pro-life..That's the way I see it.
To be clear, my point was that Annie's seeming concern about infringement on the rights of mothers only applies to them before the birth of their children. I am curious as to why she and others are complacent about any such government policing and intrusion post-birth, but are incensed by the possibility of it pre-birth.
To say that we shouldn't have a law criminalizing the murder of children pre-birth because it could lead to other laws which will infringe on the freedom of parents is an inconsistent argument for those who seem to have no problem with having those freedoms stripped from them post-birth.
Criminalizing anything does NOT stop it. It simply creates criminals to be punished . . . prohibition should have taught us that but the drug war proves we learned nothing. We need to address these intractable issues more intelligently. I fear we never will. The post birth issues are addressed with other means that have the potential to mitigate the abuse, neglect and dependency issues faced by existing children. We make no effort to address the pre-birth issues with similar efforts. Criminality is a lousy, lazy and ineffective "dirty bomb" non-solution to problems, IMO.
Criminalizing anything does NOT stop it. It simply creates criminals to be punished . . . prohibition should have taught us that but the drug war proves we learned nothing. We need to address these intractable issues more intelligently. I fear we never will. The post birth issues are addressed with other means that have the potential to mitigate the abuse, neglect and dependency issues faced by existing children. We make no effort to address the pre-birth issues with similar efforts. Criminality is a lousy, lazy and ineffective "dirty bomb" non-solution to problems, IMO.
Yes, we've discussed this once before. I understand your point and you have caused me to "stand down" a bit on this issue. But my point was not that we should criminalize abortion ... only that those who are so verbose about protecting the rights of pregnant women at the expense of the unborn child, use arguments that aren't consistent, imo. (And the mindset of those who seem cavalier about ending innocent human life is as incomprehensible to me, as I'm sure my mindset is to them.)
Yes, we've discussed this once before. I understand your point and you have caused me to "stand down" a bit on this issue. But my point was not that we should criminalize abortion ... only that those who are so verbose about protecting the rights of pregnant women at the expense of the unborn child, use arguments that aren't consistent, imo. (And the mindset of those who seem cavalier about ending innocent human life is as incomprehensible to me, as I'm sure my mindset is to them.)
When there is a conflict between the rights of a person already born and a *person* unborn (and we can argue about the unborn's personhood as well), then I think that we must choose for the person who is already born.
I would NEVER have an abortion myself, but I will not constrain the right of another who believes differently on this issue.
The problem is that if you grant personhood to the fetus, then it follows that you will criminalize abortion and create many more problems than you solve.
When there is a conflict between the rights of a person already born and a *person* unborn (and we can argue about the unborn's personhood as well), then I think that we must choose for the person who is already born.
Nana, I believe this argument would hold up if the rights we were talking about were on equal footing: the right to life vs. the right to life. But the majority of abortions are not done for that reason. They are used as a form of birth control, not because the mother's life is at serious risk.
Quote:
I would NEVER have an abortion myself, but I will not constrain the right of another who believes differently on this issue.
Except we are talking about completely helpless human lives which are unable to protect or speak up for themselves so who is going to speak up for them? As another poster pointed out, at different points in history various groups of people did not have rights and were not protected because they were considered to be non-persons. I'm sure you would not have been one to say you would never kill a slave that you owned, but you wouldn't constrain the rights of other slave-owners who believed differently on the issue.
Quote:
The problem is that if you grant personhood to the fetus, then it follows that you will criminalize abortion and create many more problems than you solve.
Whenever something is criminalized, problems are created. Better by far, as Mystic points out, to address the issues at hand, creating viable solutions and giving help where help is needed. But if we continue insisting that the unborn are not humans whose lives are of value and worthy of protection, if we continue to view them as simply an unwanted burden, then society as a whole will not look for solutions that protect and benefit them.
Again....people just seem unable to differentiate between an actual child and a fetus.....especially a fetus in the first tri-mester when the vast majority of abortions are performed.
Having the potential to be something is not the same as being something. A pile of lumber is not a house, a pile of parts is not a car, a fetus is not a child.
A person who is pregnant cannot decide they are unable to properly care for the fetus and hand it off to someone who can. Would anyone in their right mind give a child to someone who said,"I do not want it, I cannot take care of it."?
There are many people who cannot stop drinking, smoking, drugging or overeating even though they really want to. These people are not jailed because they have an addiction or because they lack willpower.
Now, all of a sudden, because there is a pregnancy involved, women are supposed to possess super human strength and just stop.....easy peasy....or off to jail you go. Really?
Why should somenone who carries genetic defects be allowed to subject a child to those defects? Isn't that child abuse? Why should they be allowed to knowingly inflict a horrifying disease on an innocent child?
Should carriers of Tay-Sachs, Huntington's disease, etc..... be jailed if they willingly inflict those diseases on an innocent child instead of having themselves sterilized?
How are you going to justify punishing one and not the other?
Religious people have it right whether they understand the issue or not...Highly intelligent people also have it right..both who are anti-abortion have it right- Those with less intelligent or people who have never thought for themselves are pro-abortion..It's really quite simple- Low IQ- pro-abortion--- Higher IQ...pro-life..That's the way I see it.
Oh golly, gee, wow...., duh....I guess I better change my pro-choice stance because someone thinks it means I have a low IQ. LMAO
Again....people just seem unable to differentiate between an actual child and a fetus.....especially a fetus in the first tri-mester when the vast majority of abortions are performed.
Having the potential to be something is not the same as being something. A pile of lumber is not a house, a pile of parts is not a car, a fetus is not a child.
I don't care if you call it a fetus or a child: it's human and it's alive. Unlike a pile of wood which could become all sorts of things, not necessarily a house, a human fetus which survives is not going to become something other than human.
Quote:
A person who is pregnant cannot decide they are unable to properly care for the fetus and hand it off to someone who can. Would anyone in their right mind give a child to someone who said,"I do not want it, I cannot take care of it."?
There are many people who cannot stop drinking, smoking, drugging or overeating even though they really want to. These people are not jailed because they have an addiction or because they lack willpower.
Now, all of a sudden, because there is a pregnancy involved, women are supposed to possess super human strength and just stop.....easy peasy....or off to jail you go. Really?
I want to make sure that you are not addressing me, since I have said I do not believe punishing people is the answer. But neither is insisting that human life at whatever stage is not valuable and worthy of protection in order to avoid having to confront and help to solve the problems that cause women to end the life of an unborn child.
Quote:
Why should somenone who carries genetic defects be allowed to subject a child to those defects? Isn't that child abuse? Why should they be allowed to knowingly inflict a horrifying disease on an innocent child?
Should carriers of Tay-Sachs, Huntington's disease, etc..... be jailed if they willingly inflict those diseases on an innocent child instead of having themselves sterilized?
How are you going to justify punishing one and not the other?
Are you meaning to say that people with diseases or birth defects are any less deserving of life?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LMAO