Those who are pro-life, does it bother you that McCain...

[Murphy101]

I know some Catholics who have some serious dry spells.

 

Current doctrine specifically states that sex is solely for the purpose of procreation.

 

No, it does not. It says that procreation is the natural fruit of married relations. Which it is. It says that those who are unwilling for whatever reason to accept that fruit, should either:

 

a. not have sex during fertile times (periodic abstinence/NFP)

or in very serious situations the couple may feel that any risk at all is not acceptable to them and thus they should consider

 

b. no sex at all until pregnancy is no longer a worry (whatever their concern is has passed, menopause, whatever - would depend on the couple's reasons)

 

the church knows sex is more to a married couple than procreation, otherwise the church would not condone NFP use

 

the church knows sex is more to a married couple than procreation, hence the constant reference to any abstinence in marriage being refer to in terms of being serious, prayful, grave, sacrificial, hardship, and difficult for a couple.

 

but all of that doesn't remove the fact that procreation is ALSO the natural result of sex

 

there are many ways a couple can show affection and love for one another outside of the sex.

 

but the only way to 100% avoid pregnancy is to avoid sex either during fertile times, or all together.

 

I agree, which is why one should not expect others to conform to their own religious guidelines regarding sex.

 

For me this is not about sex.

This is about abortion.

If someone is so serious about not wanting to risk pregnancy that they'd kill the baby rather than continue - they yes, I think they should be serious enough to not have sex until whatever problem they have is resolved!

 

Because sex can cause pregnancy.

 

I'm not telling anyone they have to be catholic or whatever.

I'm not even saying anyone should not have sex.

 

I'm saying women shouldn't whine about getting pregnant like they didn't know there was a chance it could happen when they had sex.

[Peek a Boo]

Anyway, my perspective is that no one "owes" their body to anyone else, even if it means keeping that other person alive. If someone else is dying of a disease or injury, and I could save them through a blood transfusion or donation of an "extra" organ that I can live without, etc., that does not obligate me to give it. My body is my own, and no one else's. No one has a "right" to my body for nine months if I don't want to give it. And since you've used the analogy of slavery here, I will say that to me, if a government steps in and forces a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, they have essentially made her a slave, have they not? They have essentially said that one party (the fetus) has legal rights to the body of another person against that person's will. In the eyes of the law, that woman has become little more than an incubator. I find that thought stomach-churningly repulsive.

 

It's just that I find the thought of half of the population losing the legal right to own their own bodies to be even more disturbing than the thought of abortion.

 

I do understand the "right to my own body" argument, and acknowledged as much in the ectogenesis thread, but what it leaves out is proportional use of force.

 

If someone touches me uninvited, I still have a right to my own body, but I don't have a right to KILL that person. According to Gloria Steinem, even if they took my hand and placed it on their genitals I still don't have a right to even consider it harassment..... ;)

 

If that person HITS me, I still don't have a RIGHT to deliberately kill them. Altho some cases may very well end up that way.

 

As i mentioned previously, YES, a woman has a right to her own body, but that right only extends as far as her OWN body -- there is a limit to how far you can exercise your own rights w/o trampling on another's rights.

 

It is when your right to your own body costs another human their right to LIFE that I draw the line.

 

I mentioned previously that a woman should have the right to remove a fetus, but there would be a legal consequence for causing the death of a person. [eta: replace person w/ "the death of a HUMAN" --person is a legal term and the unborn are not yet recognized as persons. maybe first they'll have to be legally recognized as 3/5 of a person....]That could be anywhere from self defense to murder, w/ penalties being similar to what we have now on the books for homocides.

 

Do i think I am "enslaved" if someone touches me and i can't kill them on the spot? no.

Do I think I am "enslaved" if some solicitor shows up on my property and rings my doorbell even tho I have a "no soliciting" sign up? Do i shoot them on the spot cuz they infringed on my property rights? no. What if they break a leg? Now I am "enslaved" to not only NOT shoot them, but to call 911 and try to HELP them --because they have rights too.

If someone leaves a child on our doorstep, we don't consider it being "enslaved" to that child till authorities get here, and we don't even CONSIDER killing it just so our day won't be inconvenienced.

a day vs several months.

How much is a human's life worth?

 

Our society already recognizes that people DO have an obligation to help others --like when a crowd stands around watching while a child or other adult is beat to death-- there is horror and outrage that NOBODY "used their body" to help the situation.

 

When our society encourages people to help others on one hand then defends the right to kill for convenience on another, i DO question just how civilized a society we really have.

 

So a woman can wait for 8 months [induce early --high rate of survival] to NOT trample this other human's right to life, then go out and spend the rest of her life not "enslaved" to anything, or she can decide to deliberately kill and thus remove forever another's right to LIVE. And take the consequences of infringing another's right to life.

 

We teach similar ideas about our laws on MURDER.

Killing another person for convenience is simply Not. Right.

No matter how inconvenienced or uncomfortable YOU might be w/ that person's existence. Even if we feel "enslaved" to this person or not, we are taught to seek legal recourse, not death.

Abortion on demand is essentially supporting the death penalty for TRESPASSING w/o legal consequence or due process.

 

I think forcing people to acknowledge that the person inside them

 

1. is a human and

2. has basic rights too

 

is a far, far cry from slavery and makes light of what real slavery is.

 

and one more thougt that i forgot to add:

I find the idea of legally slaughtering millions of humans on demand for convenience more repulsive than recognizing each human is precious -even as an incubator-, even if we have to sacrifice some time for that person to LIVE. We recognize heros for saving lives everyday --I don't think calling a woman an "incubator" would be appropriate. HERO is more in line w/ what we acknowledge now: the selfless saving of another person's life. If i have to err on one side of repulsive or the other, I'll err on the side of life.

 

So the choices for the gvt would be

1. Trample a woman's right to their own body during gestation, or

2. Trample another human's right to live forever.

 

 

at this point, i think it would be better to direct this topic to another thread before it gets deleted ;)

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53976

 

I do think discussing the rights of the humans involved is where this discussion really needs to be aimed, so i applaud you for focussing on that aspect.

 

 

=====================================================

 

and yeah, I do realize that we are mostly presenting our own views here :D

[Jenny in Florida]

I have had several days of no politics, but I have to break it tonight! Choosing McCain for president, you are not just continuing a tradition of deaths in war, you are also continuing:

 

the death penalty (which makes NO sense--you are saying no one has the right to decide to take a life, except God--but you think it is alright to end a criminal's life?).

 

lifting restrictions on guns, which has been shown to increase gun related deaths tremendously.

 

increase production of nuclear weapons, and increase military spending, despite the fact that we have enough nuclear weapons to blow the entire world up several hundred times.

 

decreasing social programs for the elderly and disabled, which are necessary for their health and well being.

 

decreasing aid to other nations in need of sanitary aid, water cleansing and food supplies, as we funnel that money into military spending.

 

And the list goes on. And that does not include any "secret invasions" we wouldn't be told about, until much, much later.

 

Oh, wow. You know, I've been trying so hard to stay out of these political discussions, because they upset me so much. Of course, I can't force myself to stop reading them, but I do try not to let myself post. So, I was going to just rep you for this one, because you spoke up so beautifully on these issues. But, apparently, I like you too much, because I have to "spread it around" before I can rep you again.

 

So, I had to "go public," because I simply couldn't let you not know how much I appreciated your post.

[Jenny in Florida]

Imagine if you believed that unborn children, Iraqi citizens, murderers on death row, the innocents of Darfur, chocolate plantation slaves, diamond mine slaves, and your own country's brave soldiers were ALL deserving of life and that NONE of them should die without us first trying everything in the world to keep them alive. Then who would you vote for? If all of the above were equally important to you, who would you cast your ballot for?

 

That is exactly what I do believe. And I'm voting for Obama.

[Jenny in Florida]

Thank you so much Mrs. Mungo. I cannot imagine for the life of me what I did to get on j.griff's bad list and I surely cannot figure out how Heifer International got on her bad list. Of all the things to be mad at someone about, that is the weirdest.

 

While I respect the rights and good-hearted intentions of those who do give to Heifer International, I have to say it is not my favorite charity, either. Since I'm one of those weird pro-ALL-life people, I don't support the exploitation of animals for human consumption.

 

Now, do I think j.griff was unnecessarily abrasive in expressing her viewpoint? Um, yeah. But I do kind of agree with her argument.

[Jugglin'5]

For the sake of argument, let's say that it is correct that no one wants to adopt non-white babies. Does this somehow make them unworthy of life? Maybe some wish they had never been born, but I expect most would strenuously object if you wanted to remove them from the world. ETA: In my very small church there is a white couple who adopted two Hispanic brothers who had been trapped in the foster system. I still don't think it is as rare as people seem to think.

 

In effort to increase adoption rate, some years ago our state DHS promoted adoptable kids on evening news in manner similar to that of humane society showcasing companion animals available for adoption. Most were African-American or mixed race kids ranging from early school age to teen years. Unfortunately the campaign allegedly failed to result in increased adoption rate. Right now, TN has 9 pages of profiles of minors hoping to be adopted. The state pays court and legal fees.

 

 

http://www.adoptuskids.org/states/tn/browse.aspx

[Peek a Boo]

While I respect the rights and good-hearted intentions of those who do give to Heifer International, I have to say it is not my favorite charity, either. Since I'm one of those weird pro-ALL-life people, I don't support the exploitation of animals for human consumption.

 

 

 

being pro-ALL-life isn't wierd :)

 

being supposedly pro-ALL-life then defending the right to kill a human for convenience IS wierd. Or at least, not pro-"ALL"- life,

 

since Obama defends the right to kill a human for convenience, um, that's NOT "pro-ALL-life."

[Peek a Boo]

While I respect the rights and good-hearted intentions of those who do give to Heifer International, I have to say it is not my favorite charity, either. Since I'm one of those weird pro-ALL-life people, I don't support the exploitation of animals for human consumption.

 

 

 

being pro-ALL-life isn't wierd :)

 

being supposedly pro-ALL-life then defending the right to kill a human for convenience IS wierd. Or at least, not pro-"ALL"- life.

 

since Obama defends the right to kill a human for convenience, um, that's NOT "pro-ALL-life."

[Haiku]

But everyone else I know who is pro-life, and that's quite a few people, are also pro-war and conservative. I'm not saying that justifies the assumption that anyone who is pro-life is pro-war, but it happens so often that it does make one wonder.

 

One of the reasons that this stereotype exists, imo, is that the most vocal pro-life people tend to be conservative Christian Republicans. The Republican party tends to be more hawkish than the Democratic party (I am a member of neither, btw). The Republicans also generally favor the reduction or elimination of social programs and exhort people (constantly, incessantly, and tiringly, imo) to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

What has always left me scratching my head, and in the past contributed to my pro-choice stance (I now consider myself to be pro-life and do not think that abortion on demand should be legal) is the idea that in order to "take responsibility for her actions," a woman should be compelled to have the baby, but then, according to Republican standards, she should not have the option of utilizing public assistance to help raise that child. The child, then, suffers for the mistakes of the parents. To me, a true "culture of life" includes concern for the quality of that life, not simply its mere existence. But above and beyond that, single men don't make up the rolls of people on welfare. It's women and children, and it's often because the fathers of these children are not "taking responsibility for their actions." It's very easy for men to run off and abandon their children, and it happens frequently. So in reality, it ends up being the women who DO take responsibility for their actions by choosing to have and raise their children. But they are then looked upon as leeches who simply want a hand-out, lazy low-lifes who expect to be taken care of. I know that the argument could be made that men shirk their responsibilities because they know that their children will be provided with welfare, and I am sure that happens to some degree, but ime as a social worker, men who simply vanish and are never heard from again or simply refuse to be involved with their children, even if their whereabouts are known, are far more common than men who are involved with their kids but would rather let their kids exist on welfare than step up and provide financial responsibility.

 

So, to me, it seems that the Republican idea is that women shouldn't have abortions but they shouldn't get any help when they take responsibility for their children, either. It's important that the child be born, but then who cares what happens to the kid after that?

 

I do not believe that abortion on demand should be legal ... in part because of my religious beliefs (I am not Christian), but also because I believe that the availability of abortion on demand allows society to mask the social problems that cause many women to consider abortion in the first place. I believe that, were abortion to be illegal, society would need to step up and provide more support to women who have babies and have to go it alone, be that through government support or through societal mores that encourage local support for these women through private charities or family involvement. I believe that legalized abortion makes it much easier for families to tell a girl/woman "We don't want to be burdened by helping you. Just get an abortion."

 

And as I mentioned previously, as an adoptive parent, I do not view adoption as a solution to abortion. Telling women that they should place their children for adoption if they can't care for them alone is no more a solution to these social problems than abortion is.

 

Anyway, this seemed to ramble, but my original point was that the stereotype exists, imo, because of the religious and political affiliations of those who seem most vocally "pro-life."

 

Tara

[Jenny in Florida]

being pro-ALL-life isn't wierd :)

 

being supposedly pro-ALL-life then defending the right to kill a human for convenience IS wierd. Or at least, not pro-"ALL"- life.

 

since Obama defends the right to kill a human for convenience, um, that's NOT "pro-ALL-life."

 

I don't "defend" that right. As someone else mentioned, however, the truth is that there have been abortions pretty much as long as there have been people. Making it illegal doesn't stop the practice.

 

I do not, personally, believe in abortion. Therefore, I won't have one.

 

I do not, personally, believe it is acceptable to kill or torture an animal to obtain food. Therefore, I don't do it.

 

In neither case do I believe it is my place to impose my moral/religous views on our entire society. Do I wish everyone agreed with me? Of course. But I don't feel the need to legislate it.

 

Truth be told, I've never, ever seen or read about a candidate for any office with whom I agree on every issue, or even on all the issues that are important to me. In this particular election, for me, the scale tips in favor of Obama.

[Aggie]

 

What has always left me scratching my head, and in the past contributed to my pro-choice stance (I now consider myself to be pro-life and do not think that abortion on demand should be legal) is the idea that in order to "take responsibility for her actions," a woman should be compelled to have the baby, but then, according to Republican standards, she should not have the option of utilizing public assistance to help raise that child. The child, then, suffers for the mistakes of the parents.

 

So, to me, it seems that the Republican idea is that women shouldn't have abortions but they shouldn't get any help when they take responsibility for their children, either. It's important that the child be born, but then who cares what happens to the kid after that?

 

I do not believe that abortion on demand should be legal ... in part because of my religious beliefs (I am not Christian), but also because I believe that the availability of abortion on demand allows society to mask the social problems that cause many women to consider abortion in the first place. I believe that, were abortion to be illegal, society would need to step up and provide more support to women who have babies and have to go it alone, be that through government support or through societal mores that encourage local support for these women through private charities or family involvement. I believe that legalized abortion makes it much easier for families to tell a girl/woman "We don't want to be burdened by helping you. Just get an abortion."

 

And as I mentioned previously, as an adoptive parent, I do not view adoption as a solution to abortion. Telling women that they should place their children for adoption if they can't care for them alone is no more a solution to these social problems than abortion is.

 

I disagree with some of this Tara. Conservatives do not believe women shouldn't have the choice of public assistance. What some of us do have a problem with is abuse of the system. One doesn't have to look very far to see our tax dollars wasted. Another issue we would like solved is the broken social services programs. Most of us want to help when and where help is needed, including help for single moms. But from my pov, the gov't isn't doing a cost-effective job.

 

As for the social problems that cause women to consider an abortion...what are those problems? Abortion providers are not required to report any statistics, as far as I know, so those numbers are a mystery. Are most women poor, middle-income, or wealthy? Married or single? Until some numbers are reported, we can only guess who these women are and why they seek an abortion. I have serious doubts that most women who have abortions are doing so because of poverty, or even that their families are encouraging them to have an abortion. And until I see reliable statistics......

 

Aggie

[tibbyl]

For the sake of argument' date=' let's say that it is correct that no one wants to adopt non-white babies. Does this somehow make them unworthy of life? Maybe some wish they had never been born, but I expect most would strenuously object if you wanted to remove them from the world. ETA: In my very small church there is a white couple who adopted two Hispanic brothers who had been trapped in the foster system. I still don't think it is as rare as people seem to think.[/quote']

 

 

My post was in response to those who stated that domestic adoption was prohibitively expensive and a bureaucratic tangled web. Since I have some limited experience with the state foster and adoption services, I simply was clearing up a misconception.

 

Our state, and many others I suspect, has not only streamlined the process in last decade or so but has made sincere effort to get word out to public. And I linked to the profiles of minors available for adoption.

 

You'll have to have your "suppose no one wants to adopt nonwhite babies" argument with someone else.

 

And it's really not all that difficult to obtain hard statistical data on ages, gender, and ethnic background on adoptees from your state's children's services department. Typically the data (not personal identifying information) is made available upon request.

[LilyK]

My post was in response to those who stated that domestic adoption was prohibitively expensive and a bureaucratic tangled web. Since I have some limited experience with the state foster and adoption services, I simply was clearing up a misconception.

 

 

All, or at least most of the kids on the link that you provided were older kids. Unfortunately, we all know how difficult it is for these older children in the foster care system to get adopted. I am glad to see that TN has wisely streamlined the process.

However, those who previously stated that domestic adoption of babies is extremely expensive and a tangled mess of red tape are absolutely correct. I have several friends who have adopted babies within the past five years. They have formed their own support and guidance group at our church in order to help guide other couples through the incomprehensible maze. BTW, for me, $35,000 is definitely prohibitively expensive.

 

I posted this because in a discussion about abortion, I believe it is the adoption of babies that is relevant to the issue.

[tibbyl]

All, or at least most of the kids on the link that you provided were older kids. Unfortunately, we all know how difficult it is for these older children in the foster care system to get adopted. I am glad to see that TN has wisely streamlined the process.

However, those who previously stated that domestic adoption of babies is extremely expensive and a tangled mess of red tape are absolutely correct. I have several friends who have adopted babies within the past five years. They have formed their own support and guidance group at our church in order to help guide other couples through the incomprehensible maze. BTW, for me, $35,000 is definitely prohibitively expensive.

I posted this because in a discussion about abortion, I believe it is the adoption of babies that is relevant to the issue.

 

Again, please read the original post. I offered that state departments as an affordable option; nowhere did I dispute that private and overseas placements were expensive. The reason you do not see infant and tots on website is because, well, the available ones have already been adopted. Could you please provide documentation for your insistence that STATE children's services department adoptions are prohibitively expensive if you are including them in your expensive category? Fostering is another way to get first dibbs on available infants and toddlers although some states do not openly admit this. Oftentimes infants are adopted by foster family after parental rights are severed and are never promoted to public.

 

I disagree that only adoption of babies is relevant here. As Ogden Nash wrote, "The problem with a kitten is that ... it becomes a cat." Many mothers, in spite of strong efforts, simply are unable to overcome their personal battles that interfere with bringing up a child. It can take some years for the family unit to disintegrate to point of terminating parental rights.

[Haiku]

As for the social problems that cause women to consider an abortion...what are those problems?

 

Lack of affordable post-secondary education/college options, lack of affordable/quality childcare for low-income workers, inefficiency/ineffectiveness of state child-support collection agencies, lack of affordable mental health/substance abuse treatment, poor public education, job flight, an unlivable minimum wage, poverty, violence, a societal attitude that unwanted pregnancies are merely inconveniences that can be made to disappear ... *poof* ... with no repercussions ... and etc.

 

Tara

[ma23peas]

Lack of affordable post-secondary education/college options, lack of affordable/quality childcare for low-income workers, inefficiency/ineffectiveness of state child-support collection agencies, lack of affordable mental health/substance abuse treatment, poor public education, job flight, an unlivable minimum wage, poverty, violence, a societal attitude that unwanted pregnancies are merely inconveniences that can be made to disappear ... *poof* ... with no repercussions ... and etc.

 

Tara

 

Our country was not made to service those who have 'wants'...It was made to service those who have NEEDS...the issue here is that MANY things happen to people that are beyond their control...i.e. hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, physical disabilities due to accidents at factories etc. for THOSE people...I see a clear and present need...but PREGNANCY is not beyond their control...that's the point.

 

If you KNOW the risk involved when you engage in sexual relations with a man (don't go to the rape/incest...less than 1% to me qualifies them for that BEYOND their control aspect) then YOU have to take the responsibility and do the best you can, rely on your family, rely on that man who it was just absolutely necessary you lay in bed with, give the baby up for adoption...there are many many families who would adopt a baby such as that....but please, let's stop asking the government to pay for things that could have and should have been prevented...if I drive drunk and injure myself in an accident, I don't think I should qualify for government assistance...let the churches and community non for profit agencies form to help out those that NEED assistance due to their lack of responsibility...MANY churches offer counseling/adoption agencies....and let the government help those that really had no choice in their desperate cases.

 

Tara

[Haiku]

YOU have to take the responsibility and do the best you can, rely on your family, rely on that man who it was just absolutely necessary you lay in bed with, give the baby up for adoption

 

I addressed exactly these issues in my post about the stereotype of pro-lifers being pro-war conservatives. I don't think that people can have it both ways: they can either provide women the assistance they need to parent the children that they don't want aborted or they can accept that fact that women who feel they have no options will choose abortion.

 

Tara (the other Tara ;) )

 

ETA: I don't see the availability of mental health and substance abuse treatment, timely and effective collection of child support, quality public education, etc., as selfish "wants," either.

[Chocolate Rose]

...but PREGNANCY is not beyond their control...that's the point.

 

This makes total sense in theory. But, the reality is that abstinence does not work. I'm going to say it again - ABSTINENCE DOES NOT WORK. Palin's daughter is the newest poster child for this. Yes, she is keeping the baby. She is very fortunate to have a supportive family. I don't know that most young girls have that kind of support. Birth control doesn't always work. Women (and men) who feel they are being totally responsible and using birth control find that out the hard way.

Our society has such a stigma around sex that many girls/women make the choice not to carry a baby. And, even if you disagree, many girls/women make the choice not to continue the pregnancy because of their life situation. There are always going to be abortions - whether it is legal or not, safe or not. I don't think any woman makes an abortion decision lightly. I am so thankful that I was never in a situation where I had to even consider abortion. But, I don't think that making abortion illegal changes anything other than maiming or killing young women. Desperate people are going to do desperate things.

I know that nothing I say will change anyone's opinion of abortion - just like nothing anyone says will change mine. But, hopefully there will be some realization that it is not a black and white issue. Even if you truly think it is.;)

[Twinmom]

However, those who previously stated that domestic adoption of babies is extremely expensive and a tangled mess of red tape are absolutely correct. I have several friends who have adopted babies within the past five years. They have formed their own support and guidance group at our church in order to help guide other couples through the incomprehensible maze. BTW, for me, $35,000 is definitely prohibitively expensive.

 

I posted this because in a discussion about abortion, I believe it is the adoption of babies that is relevant to the issue.

 

Where are you folks looking at domestic adoption? I'm thinking that some must be looking solely at lawyer run agencies...they are for profit and are outrageously expensive. Most good non-profits will do a better job, much more cheaply.

 

At my adoption agency, I placed babies on a sliding fee scale from as low as $5,000 in some cases; more typically, $10,000 to $25,000 depending on the family's ability to pay and the level of openness they had in their adoption (ie, would take a non-white, not so "perfect" baby). Special needs babies were adopted for even less, occasionally free even though we were private sector. With the adoption tax credit, most folks did just fine. International is another story...much more expensive, but that's the decision of the foriegn country. My personal fee portion for international was a whopping $3,500, despite all the work. I personally adopted one child for $3,500 plus airfare, another for $25,000 and two for free, all through private domestic agencies. Those who are adopting for outrageous amounts should shop around a little bit more, or consider whether the adoption of a non-white or special needs child might fit the bill. The pickier you are, the more you pay.

 

Red tape? Only if you want to see it that way. A stack of papers goes quick when you care about a child and have a good social worker explaining things to you. Again, I say shop around.

[Peek a Boo]

This makes total sense in theory. But, the reality is that abstinence does not work. I'm going to say it again - ABSTINENCE DOES NOT WORK.

 

actually, ABSTINENCE works 100% of the time.

 

It's when one DOESN'T practice abstinence that it fails :)

[Peek a Boo]

I don't "defend" that right. As someone else mentioned, however, the truth is that there have been abortions pretty much as long as there have been people. Making it illegal doesn't stop the practice.

 

I do not, personally, believe in abortion. Therefore, I won't have one.

 

I do not, personally, believe it is acceptable to kill or torture an animal to obtain food. Therefore, I don't do it.

 

In neither case do I believe it is my place to impose my moral/religous views on our entire society. Do I wish everyone agreed with me? Of course. But I don't feel the need to legislate it.

 

Truth be told, I've never, ever seen or read about a candidate for any office with whom I agree on every issue, or even on all the issues that are important to me. In this particular election, for me, the scale tips in favor of Obama.

 

making murder and slavery illegal doesn't stop the practice either, so maybe we should make those legal??

So you don't "defend" abortion on demand as a right? That means you'd be just fine w/ Congress changing the law to making abortion illegal? I just want to make sure that everyone's clear on where we stand in this discussion. Lack of clarity can be a huge stumbling block in a discussion.

 

why does society see fit to impose their moral/religious beliefs

on me if i want to sell my daughter into a sex business? How rude of them.

why does society see fit to impose their moral beliefs

on me if i want to kill off my old parents cuz they are medically unhealthy? how rude of them.

why does society see fit to impose its moral/religious beliefs

if I want to kill a Really Bad Guy that committed atrocities? how rude of them.

 

 

So you're saying there's no place in society for laws based on morality?

You're saying that imposing some silly Human Rights standards on society is a futile effort?

If you are comfortable discounting Human Rights, then by all means, let's legalize alllll those forms of killing and abuse, because, they're gonna happen anyway.

 

Is Obama pro-animal rights?

Is he pro-unborn human rights?

 

well, no, he's not.

 

Does he want to impose some sort of moral/religious belief on the rest of us? oh yeah.

 

So i guess I'm just not seeing how you being pro-ALL-life has anything to do w/ liking Obama's stance on life --someone who by his own admission doesn't even have the knowledge to know when LIFE is relevant. Which is why Kelli's original list was one where she was feeling so much frustration.

Obama is NOT pro-ALL-life.

ESPECIALLY when it comes to the unborn.

 

Can you support Obama on his stance in other issues? sure!

 

But for a man who DOES defend the right to kill for convenience, his stance on "life" doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.

 

But I do agree that it is difficult to find a candidate we like on every issue.

[emeraldjoy]

Lack of affordable post-secondary education/college options, lack of affordable/quality childcare for low-income workers, inefficiency/ineffectiveness of state child-support collection agencies, lack of affordable mental health/substance abuse treatment, poor public education, job flight, an unlivable minimum wage, poverty, violence, a societal attitude that unwanted pregnancies are merely inconveniences that can be made to disappear ... *poof* ... with no repercussions ... and etc.

 

Tara

 

As a vehement Pro-ALL-Lifer (as someone else coined), I very much a agree and was hoping you would answer the question when I saw is posed earlier.

Thanks for this.

e

[Jenny in Florida]

making murder and slavery illegal doesn't stop the practice either, so maybe we should make those legal??

So you don't "defend" abortion on demand as a right? That means you'd be just fine w/ Congress changing the law to making abortion illegal? I just want to make sure that everyone's clear on where we stand in this discussion. Lack of clarity can be a huge stumbling block in a discussion.

 

why does society see fit to impose their moral/religious beliefs

on me if i want to sell my daughter into a sex business? How rude of them.

why does society see fit to impose their moral beliefs

on me if i want to kill off my old parents cuz they are medically unhealthy? how rude of them.

why does society see fit to impose its moral/religious beliefs

if I want to kill a Really Bad Guy that committed atrocities? how rude of them.

 

 

So you're saying there's no place in society for laws based on morality?

You're saying that imposing some silly Human Rights standards on society is a futile effort?

If you are comfortable discounting Human Rights, then by all means, let's legalize alllll those forms of killing and abuse, because, they're gonna happen anyway.

 

Is Obama pro-animal rights?

Is he pro-unborn human rights?

 

well, no, he's not.

 

Does he want to impose some sort of moral/religious belief on the rest of us? oh yeah.

 

So i guess I'm just not seeing how you being pro-ALL-life has anything to do w/ liking Obama's stance on life --someone who by his own admission doesn't even have the knowledge to know when LIFE is relevant. Which is why Kelli's original list was one where she was feeling so much frustration.

Obama is NOT pro-ALL-life.

ESPECIALLY when it comes to the unborn.

 

Can you support Obama on his stance in other issues? sure!

 

But for a man who DOES defend the right to kill for convenience, his stance on "life" doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.

 

But I do agree that it is difficult to find a candidate we like on every issue.

 

You know what? I think I'm done being shouted at here.

 

I never said that Obama agreed with me on these issues. My post mentioning that I'm voting for him was in response to a direct question with a "hypothetical" situation. I freely admit that Obama is not perfect. I've never seen a candidate who is. And, if I did find a candidate who agreed with me on all issues, I can't imagine that person would have a shot at being elected for anything.

 

So, the best I--or any reasonable person--can do is to weigh the whole of each candidate's positions against the other and decide which one I believe will be best over all for the country as a whole.

 

And, by the way, since I freely acknowledge that I am not omniscient, I happen to agree that knowing the answers to many big questions--including when life begins--is "above my pay grade." I am not arrogant enough to believe that I am capable of knowing for sure what is best or right for everyone. All I can know for sure is what I feel and what is right for me. I choose to extend to others--including you and others who do not extend the same courtesy to me--the respect to let them figure these things out for themselves.

 

I won't be back to this thread.

[asta]

This makes total sense in theory. But, the reality is that abstinence does not work. I'm going to say it again - ABSTINENCE DOES NOT WORK.

 

I don't know... my mom always said that the best form of birth control was aspirin.

 

Placed right between the knees.

 

Heh.

 

(it got 4 daughters to adulthood with no pregnancies, so there must have been something to it)

 

 

asta

[asta]

This is the internet, people. It's not real life. None of us are necessarily even who we say we are.

 

:: relax ::

 

This cr@p happens every four years. And now it is amplified by electrons. It's no reason to lose who we are.

 

Wishing you all a kind week,

 

 

asta

[Peek a Boo]

You know what? I think I'm done being shouted at here.

 

I never said that Obama agreed with me on these issues. My post mentioning that I'm voting for him was in response to a direct question with a "hypothetical" situation. I freely admit that Obama is not perfect. I've never seen a candidate who is. And, if I did find a candidate who agreed with me on all issues, I can't imagine that person would have a shot at being elected for anything.

 

So, the best I--or any reasonable person--can do is to weigh the whole of each candidate's positions against the other and decide which one I believe will be best over all for the country as a whole.

 

And, by the way, since I freely acknowledge that I am not omniscient, I happen to agree that knowing the answers to many big questions--including when life begins--is "above my pay grade." I am not arrogant enough to believe that I am capable of knowing for sure what is best or right for everyone. All I can know for sure is what I feel and what is right for me. I choose to extend to others--including you and others who do not extend the same courtesy to me--the respect to let them figure these things out for themselves.

 

I won't be back to this thread.

 

there is a HUGE difference with someone calling you to the carpet to defend a statement and someone SHOUTING at you. There are plenty of people here who have taken the time to actually clarify and define what it is they believe --this IS a discussion board.

 

You certainly aren't being forced to discuss stuff, but for those that are still reading and lurking, I'll add a few more points.

 

It doesn't require someone "omniscient" to see what every scientist can see in a microscope --life. That's not "arrogant" --that's OBSERVANT.

Knowing that it is moral to respect Human Life isn't "arrogant" either --it's what a civilized society is based on.

 

There is no respect in letting someone continue in doing and defending evil things that kill people --sorry, one does not get the right to "figure it out for themselves" that some things in life are morally wrong for a society to accept.

 

The hypothetical question being asked was absolutely asking about ALL life issues, which Obama doesn't support. My response to YOU was for clarification about how your statement that you were voting for Obama *based on that hypothetical situation* applies, since he is clearly against at least one instance in that list.

 

But enjoy the discussion elsewhere-- it's a big board :)

[Melinda in VT]

Peek, I don't know if this is what Jenny meant, but sometimes the formatting of your posts makes me feel like you are shouting. (Lots of bold type, words in all capitals, italics, etc.)

 

On the Internet, it's easy for tone to get lost or be miscounstrued.

 

Just fwiw.

[Peek a Boo]

This is the internet, people. It's not real life. None of us are necessarily even who we say we are.

 

:: relax ::

 

This cr@p happens every four years. And now it is amplified by electrons. It's no reason to lose who we are.

 

Wishing you all a kind week,

 

 

asta

 

 

I am who I say I am :D

at least, enough people have met me to vouch for me :D

[nmoira]

 

there is a HUGE difference with someone calling you to the carpet to defend a statement and someone SHOUTING at you. There are plenty of people here who have taken the time to actually clarify and define what it is they believe --this IS a discussion board.

I stopped engaging with you because I grew tired of having my arguments restated in a way that didn't fairly represent what I believe. In addition, the perceived tone (admittedly on my part; I cannot speak for others), formatting, repetition, and selected bolding makes many of your posts feel rather like a lecture rather than a discussion.

[Peek a Boo]

Peek, I don't know if this is what Jenny meant, but sometimes the formatting of your posts makes me feel like you are shouting. (Lots of bold type, words in all capitals, italics, etc.)

 

On the Internet, it's easy for tone to get lost or be miscounstrued.

 

Just fwiw.

 

 

I do understand that --

but there IS a difference in using formatting tools to underscore a specific point vs saying stuff like

 

ARE YOU CRAZY??? HELLOOOO!!!! NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MINDS WOULD THINK THAT!!! GOL--LY!

 

so in case someone is concerned about the difference in SHOUTING vs formatting, hopefully this will help clarify that. But the reality is that people use formatting on discussion boards quite a bit, esp when there are specific points trying to be addressed in a discussion that tends to get pretty emotional.

[HRAAB]

why does society see fit to impose their moral/religious beliefs

on me if i want to sell my daughter into a sex business? How rude of them.

why does society see fit to impose their moral beliefs

on me if i want to kill off my old parents cuz they are medically unhealthy? how rude of them.

why does society see fit to impose its moral/religious beliefs

if I want to kill a Really Bad Guy that committed atrocities? how rude of them.

 

Of course no pro-choice person is going to go along with those statements. I know you know that, and I understand the point you were trying to make, Peek. But that, for me, is where the problem is, and that is why these conversation about abortion never go anywhere.

 

*I think* the basic problem is in not viewing the unborn baby as fully human. We can argue blastocysts, embryo, fetus, whatever, but the issue goes back to what is that fetus. Fully human? Deserving of the rights that those people in your example deserve. Deserving equal rights with the woman who is carrying the baby?

 

I can't think of anyone I know that would say it is okay to sell you dd into the sex trade or kill off your old parents. But many of those same people say it is a woman's right to terminate the life she is carrying. So, that unborn baby is viewed differently than those already born.

 

I don't belong in this conversation because I not good at expressing my point articulately, and because I'll get upset and flustered and then really put my foot in my mouth. But everytime I see abortion comes up, it never goes anywhere. Maybe I'm wrong? I don't know. I probably shouldn't every open up these threads.

 

Janet

[Peek a Boo]

I stopped engaging with you because I grew tired of having my arguments restated in a way that didn't fairly represent what I believe. In addition, the perceived tone (admittedly on my part; I cannot speak for others), formatting, repetition, and selected bolding makes many of your posts feel rather like a lecture rather than a discussion.

 

I can appreciate that. Many people don't like having their views broken down into components that they disagree with.

Especially when it comes to abortion --the right to kill a human for convenience.

Repitition is simply a writing tool that has been around for hundreds --thousands-- of years.

I can see how it can feel like a lecture ;)

But as I have mentioned before --go ahead and show me how I am wrong, and I have shown that i can admit when I AM wrong.

 

and considering i get plenty of positive feedback for my posts, I'm not inclined to change my posting style just yet ;)

[Peek a Boo]

Of course no pro-choice person is going to go along with those statements. I know you know that, and I understand the point you were trying to make, Peek. But that, for me, is where the problem is, and that is why these conversation about abortion never go anywhere.

 

*I think* the basic problem is in not viewing the unborn baby as fully human. We can argue blastocysts, embryo, fetus, whatever, but the issue goes back to what is that fetus. Fully human? Deserving of the rights that those people in your example deserve. Deserving equal rights with the woman who is carrying the baby?

 

I can't think of anyone I know that would say it is okay to sell you dd into the sex trade or kill off your old parents. But many of those same people say it is a woman's right to terminate the life she is carrying. So, that unborn baby is viewed differently than those already born.

 

I don't belong in this conversation because I not good at expressing my point articulately, and because I'll get upset and flustered and then really put my foot in my mouth. But everytime I see abortion comes up, it never goes anywhere. Maybe I'm wrong? I don't know. I probably shouldn't every open up these threads.

 

Janet

Janet, you don't have to be articulate to engage in meaningful discussion -- discussion is where we work through all these words to make sure we're all understanding the same thing. We don't have to AGREE with everything that's said, but discussion is where we at least try.

 

and of COURSE no pro-choice person is going to agree with those statements --but why would one be willing to assert A in one situation, yet throw it out the window in a similar situation? It is the fact that those situations are so similar that leaves me scratching my head.

 

How does one define "fully human?"

well, what IS a "human"? We have the ability to empirically prove whether a single cell is a unique developing human or not.

a SINGLE cell.

it is Human.

it is Alive.

It is developing.

 

now Phred was at least willing to argue his point about defining "human" based on brain waves, and thus acknowledging that even tho all of the above applies, he is placing his definition squarely somewhere else. I disagree, but it is nice to see someone willing to really tackle how a position is seen and received.

 

Our history shows a culture that was willing to take the subjective definition of "human" and apply it to people of different skin color.

It would seem a shame to not learn from history and continue defining "human" according to subjective terms when we have provable evidence of what makes an organism a unique human.

 

and if we are going to promote Human Rights Issues, we need to be consistent in what a Human is, or be willing to re-define our stance to born-human rights issues.

 

The reason I never see abortion discussed past the wall it always ends at is because there is no way to deny that abortion on demand is the killing of a human for convenience.

And there is no way to deny that making abortion illegal puts a responsibility/ rights issue conflict on the woman vs human inside her.

Nobody likes it when you point out the obvious. ;)

 

i have redefined my own stance from "pro life" to pro-Human Rights: ALL Humans have rights. There is a proportional use of force in how to handle conflicting rights of humans. That's fodder for another discussion tho, i think.

 

I did address some rights issues in the ectogenesis thread if you want to check that out. Or you can always PM me.

[Melissa in CA]

Our country was not made to service those who have 'wants'...It was made to service those who have NEEDS...the issue here is that MANY things happen to people that are beyond their control...i.e. hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, physical disabilities due to accidents at factories etc. for THOSE people...I see a clear and present need...but PREGNANCY is not beyond their control...that's the point.

 

If you KNOW the risk involved when you engage in sexual relations with a man (don't go to the rape/incest...less than 1% to me qualifies them for that BEYOND their control aspect) then YOU have to take the responsibility and do the best you can, rely on your family, rely on that man who it was just absolutely necessary you lay in bed with, give the baby up for adoption...there are many many families who would adopt a baby such as that....but please, let's stop asking the government to pay for things that could have and should have been prevented...if I drive drunk and injure myself in an accident, I don't think I should qualify for government assistance...let the churches and community non for profit agencies form to help out those that NEED assistance due to their lack of responsibility...MANY churches offer counseling/adoption agencies....and let the government help those that really had no choice in their desperate cases.

 

Tara

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Murphy101]

*I think* the basic problem is in not viewing the unborn baby as fully human. We can argue blastocysts, embryo, fetus, whatever, but the issue goes back to what is that fetus. Fully human? Deserving of the rights that those people in your example deserve. Deserving equal rights with the woman who is carrying the baby?

 

I can't think of anyone I know that would say it is okay to sell you dd into the sex trade or kill off your old parents.

 

see now...

I do view them as "fully" human...

 

but let's say we don't...

 

what is the difference between saying a 20 week fetus is not fully human because of lack of mental awareness and an adult person is no longer "fully human" because of the lack of mental awareness?

 

what is the difference between saying a fetus is not fully human because it's in a womb and dependent on another person and saying a quadrapalegic (sp!) is no longer fully human?

 

if we are going to base what is or is not "fully" human on their mental or physical state or location - wow! can you imagine how many people woudl NOT qualifiy?

 

And although you or I might not be cursed to actually know people okay with the child sex trade or the killing off of old folks - you can bet their are plenty of people who do think it's okay. Those trades are big business for a reason - someone is okay with it. LOTS of someones.

 

And it was not that long ago that the physical and mentally impaired, the poor, and the elderly were actively treated by some gov'ts as not fully human. It's a mistake to think it couldn't happen again. It can and it has numerous times in the past. Heck, even in some countries right now.

 

Some examples?

black slaves were considered 1/3 men when the constitution was written. (south wanted voting power, some of which was based on population, but they didn't want to give up slavery. the compromise was saying black men would qualify as 1/3 of a man)

 

medical history is filled with examples of minorities, disadvantaged, elderly, and disabled people being exploited for scientific "advancement" because they were considered less valuable humans, or not worthy of human status at all.

 

so for me, "fully" human doesn't matter.

1/9th human is enough to be worth regarding as life and as human.

that slippery slope to deciding who qualifies as "fully" human is scary as he** to me.

and I think the slide down starts with abortion.

 

It starts with saying "those" fetus aren't fully human

It starts with saying that woman shouldn't have to carry the baby.

Then it becomes that baby with whatever medical condition isn't worthy of being called fully human. (already this is often touted as reason to abort)

Then it's that old person has no "quality" of life...they can't have a "full" life... so they can be "let go".

 

I strongly disagree with other people deciding it in their power to determine whether another person lives or dies based on whether that other person is living according to their standards of a life worth having. Because most of the time, imnsho, how much they think another person should be allowed to live has less to do with that person's life value than with their own wants. With them not wanting to be inconvieneced or bothered with their fellow man.

[Peek a Boo]

I don't know... my mom always said that the best form of birth control was aspirin.

 

Placed right between the knees.

 

Heh.

asta

 

 

um, I'll just state that for the more creative couples out there, holding an aspirin between your knees doesn't make one incapable of, well, yeah.....

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

If someone makes a choice, that is their choice that THEY have to live with, not me. If I make a choice, *I* have to live with the choice, not anyone else.

 

So why, instead of trying to take away the free will God has given us to make decisions that I believe God and only God can judge, would it not be better to show love and support to those who are struggling to make the decision in the first place?

 

I'm pro-choice, but I'm also pro-life. I don't want to take anyone's rights away, but at the same time I want to provide support to those women who do have the opportunity to choose life. I want them to have affordable child care, job training, baby needs, assistance with food and housing and utilities if they need it. I donate regularly to our Crisis Pregnancy Center. I have gone into unwed mothers homes and offered them fellowship.

 

IMHO that is a far better way to promote life than to point fingers at those who make a different decision.

 

And, if we are arguing that the government has the right to make decisions about a 12 week old fetus are we also not granting the government license to make decisions about our own children?

[Haiku]

Because most of the time, imnsho, how much they think another person should be allowed to live has less to do with that person's life value than with their own wants. With them not wanting to be inconvieneced or bothered with their fellow man.

 

I don't think that's true at all. When I was pro-choice, I was a social worker. I worked in a variety of capacities, from case manager at an AIDS service organization to a Head Start case manager to a foster care case manager to a food bank case manager. When I was pro-choice, I adopted children from orphanages. When I was pro-choice, I gave my support to Amnesty International. When I was pro-choice, I sponsored disadvantaged children. When I was pro-choice, I drove for Meals on Wheels. When I was pro-choice, I volunteered in a soup kitchen. When I was pro-choice, I was a Big Sister. When I was pro-choice, I volunteered as a camp counselor at a camp for medically needy children.

 

And lest I simply appear to be tooting my own horn, lots and lots and lots (in fact, the majority) of the people I worked and volunteered with were liberal pro-choice people.

 

When I was pro-choice, I defined the beginning of "life" as viability independent from the mother. I was no different then than I am now in regards to my respect for life. I just defined life differently. Obviously, I have changed my mind. But that doesn't mean I was cold and unfeeling and unwilling to be bothered with my "fellow man" then.

 

Just as conservatives don't wish to be categorized as mean-spirited due to personal and political beliefs regarding government-funded welfare programs, people who are pro-choice don't want to be categorized as unwilling to be bothered with the dregs of humanity (or whatever). In neither case is it true.

 

Tara(theLiberator, as opposed to the other Tara on the thread)

[Haiku]

And, if we are arguing that the government has the right to make decisions about a 12 week old fetus are we also not granting the government license to make decisions about our own children?

 

Yes, we are. And we also allow the government to make decisions about our children after they have been born. We are not allowed to kill them, and we are punished if we do.

 

FTR, I don't think that women who have abortions should be punished criminally. I only advocate making abortion on demand unavailable.

 

Tara

[Peek a Boo]

If someone makes a choice, that is their choice that THEY have to live with, not me. If I make a choice, *I* have to live with the choice, not anyone else.

 

So why, instead of trying to take away the free will God has given us to make decisions that I believe God and only God can judge, would it not be better to show love and support to those who are struggling to make the decision in the first place?

 

I'm pro-choice, but I'm also pro-life. I don't want to take anyone's rights away, but at the same time I want to provide support to those women who do have the opportunity to choose life. I want them to have affordable child care, job training, baby needs, assistance with food and housing and utilities if they need it. I donate regularly to our Crisis Pregnancy Center. I have gone into unwed mothers homes and offered them fellowship.

 

IMHO that is a far better way to promote life than to point fingers at those who make a different decision.

 

And, if we are arguing that the government has the right to make decisions about a 12 week old fetus are we also not granting the government license to make decisions about our own children?

 

 

If i make a choice that I have to live with, then yeah- it's my choice to make in freedom.

 

But if someone makes a choice that kills another human, that is Society's job to enforce.

THAT is a choice that another human doesn't get to live with --they are DEAD.

 

Even NOW we don't have the right to kill our own children.

 

The gvt has a right to make a decision about even a single cell human because it's, well, HUMAN.

 

They are making no more of a decision about a 12 week old fetus [don't kill a human] than they are about a 5yo child [don't kill a human] or a 95yo man [don't kill a human].

 

i don't agree that being able to kill a human should be a "right" --no matter WHAT stage of development that human happens to be in.

 

It's not about "pointing fingers" it's about recognizing Basic Human Rights.

 

we absolutely "point fingers" when someone breaks the Law.

We point fingers when someone does something unethical.

We point fingers when someone stands by while another person is abused and/or killed.

There's a difference between judging another person's heart and judging their actions. Our legal system judges actions.

 

There are plenty of ways to be supportive of difficult situations w/o condoning the killing of another human.

[Melissa in CA]

I'm pro-choice, but I'm also pro-life. I don't want to take anyone's rights away...

 

The question is....should a woman have the right to kill her baby. Is that a right she should be allowed by law?

And if that is an allowed 'right,' then why can't a child be allowed the right to euthanize her parents when they become a burden and are considered no longer useful to society.

Or to get down and dirty, how about the pedophiles rights? Shouldn't he have rights as well? Why are we not allowing him his rights?

 

In this country of ours a woman has the right to kill her unborn baby. She is given a special license to kill...regardless of the circumstances. In my not-so-humble-opinion killing an innocent baby is just as horrific as pedophilia and euthanasia.

 

Some rights should just not be.

[Spy Car]

I

The gvt has a right to make a decision about even a single cell human because it's, well, HUMAN.

 

 

What about gametes? They are "alive", no?

 

And if they are not "human life" what are they?

 

Are we going to going to start locking up seed-spillers?

 

Bill (who expects to be reformatted :D )

[nmoira]

What about gametes? They are "alive", no?

 

And if they are not "human life" what are they?

 

Are we going to going to start locking up seed-spillers?

 

Bill (who expects to be reformatted :D )

:lol:

 

I always wonder about ears grown on the backs of mice, or organs that will some day be grown in laboratories. They are living tissue and have human DNA.

[Peek a Boo]

What about gametes? They are "alive", no?

 

And if they are not "human life" what are they?

 

Are we going to going to start locking up seed-spillers?

 

Bill (who expects to be reformatted :D )

 

 

You don't need to be reformatted, lol, but you do need to be ready to discuss if you know the difference between haploid human cells [eggs/sperm] vs diploid human cells. ;)

 

 

sperm/egg are NOT a developing diploid human.

 

human dna does not equal a developing human.

 

once fertilization is complete, you have a living, unique diploid human that will continue through developmental stages until it emerges at birth as what we call a Baby.

 

toe cells don't do that.

hair doesn't do that.

gametes don't do that.

growing organ tissue doesn't create a unique diploid human.

plant cells do not become human.

 

This is academic and attested to by every human embryologist out there.

 

But for some reason, as soon as the abortion debate comes up, everyone wants to abandon basic science and bring up all the different kinds of cells that AREN't diploid, that AREN't developing, and that might not even be HUMAN [virus/ bacteria, etc].

 

Serious Question: why is that?

[HRAAB]

[

quote=Martha;548097]see now...

I do view them as "fully" human...

 

I do too. We're on the same side. I was attempting to describe what I see as the difference between pro-life and pro-choice.

 

but let's say we don't...

 

what is the difference between saying a 20 week fetus is not fully human because of lack of mental awareness and an adult person is no longer "fully human" because of the lack of mental awareness?

 

what is the difference between saying a fetus is not fully human because it's in a womb and dependent on another person and saying a quadrapalegic (sp!) is no longer fully human?

 

Again, we agree. My sil had Down's Syndrome. Her handicap was profound. She was fully human. As fully human as my grandmother was before her death although she didn't know my dad, know herself and was curled up in a fetal position most of the time. As fully human as my children were at 1 week - 12 weeks, 20 weeks, etc.

 

i

f we are going to base what is or is not "fully" human on their mental or physical state or location - wow! can you imagine how many people woudl NOT qualifiy?

 

 

Me - somedays! What does constitute fully human. If it's not intellectual capacity - my sil had the mental capacity of about a 5 yr old - or physical ability - such as a quadripalegic - then what makes a person human. Is it something we can measure and place on a scale? We're all animals, right? What makes us human? For me, it's the human soul. I know I left science behind and stepped into the religious/supernatural realm.

 

 

And although you or I might not be cursed to actually know people okay with the child sex trade or the killing off of old folks - you can bet their are plenty of people who do think it's okay. Those trades are big business for a reason - someone is okay with it. LOTS of someones.

 

I guess I was referring those people here on the board or ones I know that are pro-choice. Obviously, these things do occur.

 

And it was not that long ago that the physical and mentally impaired, the poor, and the elderly were actively treated by some gov'ts as not fully human. It's a mistake to think it couldn't happen again. It can and it has numerous times in the past. Heck, even in some countries right now.

 

Some examples?

black slaves were considered 1/3 men when the constitution was written. (south wanted voting power, some of which was based on population, but they didn't want to give up slavery. the compromise was saying black men would qualify as 1/3 of a man)

 

medical history is filled with examples of minorities, disadvantaged, elderly, and disabled people being exploited for scientific "advancement" because they were considered less valuable humans, or not worthy of human status at all.

 

Yes.

 

so for me, "fully" human doesn't matter.

1/9th human is enough to be worth regarding as life and as human.

that slippery slope to deciding who qualifies as "fully" human is scary as he** to me.

and I think the slide down starts with abortion.

 

It starts with saying "those" fetus aren't fully human

It starts with saying that woman shouldn't have to carry the baby.

Then it becomes that baby with whatever medical condition isn't worthy of being called fully human. (already this is often touted as reason to abort)

Then it's that old person has no "quality" of life...they can't have a "full" life... so they can be "let go".

 

I see what you're saying, and I agree. So I don't know how to state what I was trying to say. These abortion discussions always come down to the same thing as I see it. I see the unborn child as a human with rights. For the pro-choice person, while they might view the fetus as human, they maintain that the woman's rights supersede the rights of the unborn child. In a sense, the woman is the host, the child is a ....parasite? (I need another word.) The woman's rights come first - I think. I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth who is pro-choice. If I said that wrong or am misunderstanding the pro-choice pov, tell me.

 

I strongly disagree with other people deciding it in their power to determine whether another person lives or dies based on whether that other person is living according to their standards of a life worth having. Because most of the time, imnsho, how much they think another person should be allowed to live has less to do with that person's life value than with their own wants. With them not wanting to be inconvieneced or bothered with their fellow man.

 

I don't believe we have the right to decide who lives or dies under any circumstances. I'm also anti-death penalty.

 

Oh, and to answer the OP's questions, I don't know if I'm voting for McCain. If I do, it won't be due to his imperfect pro-life stance. I'm am totally up in the air over this election. I even asked my dh to tell me who to vote for, and if you knew me, you'd be choking on your coffee over that. I rarely listen to anyone who tells me what to do - even the dh.

 

Janet

[HRAAB]

[

quote=Peek a Boo;548083]Janet, you don't have to be articulate to engage in meaningful discussion -- discussion is where we work through all these words to make sure we're all understanding the same thing. We don't have to AGREE with everything that's said, but discussion is where we at least try.

 

and of COURSE no pro-choice person is going to agree with those statements --but why would one be willing to assert A in one situation, yet throw it out the window in a similar situation? It is the fact that those situations are so similar that leaves me scratching my head.

 

 

And that was my point. I think we (pro-choice/pro-life) view what makes a human human differently Otherwise, those same protections would apply to all from conception onward.

 

How does one define "fully human?"

well, what IS a "human"? We have the ability to empirically prove whether a single cell is a unique developing human or not.

a SINGLE cell.

it is Human.

it is Alive.

It is developing.

 

now Phred was at least willing to argue his point about defining "human" based on brain waves, and thus acknowledging that even tho all of the above applies, he is placing his definition squarely somewhere else. I disagree, but it is nice to see someone willing to really tackle how a position is seen and received.

 

When you and Phred got into some of those discussion, I knew I was in over my head. For me it's simple - the unborn child is human. But how to defend that stance is where I fall.

 

Our history shows a culture that was willing to take the subjective definition of "human" and apply it to people of different skin color.

It would seem a shame to not learn from history and continue defining "human" according to subjective terms when we have provable evidence of what makes an organism a unique human.

 

and if we are going to promote Human Rights Issues, we need to be consistent in what a Human is, or be willing to re-define our stance to born-human rights issues.

 

The reason I never see abortion discussed past the wall it always ends at is because there is no way to deny that abortion on demand is the killing of a human for convenience.

And there is no way to deny that making abortion illegal puts a responsibility/ rights issue conflict on the woman vs human inside her.

Nobody likes it when you point out the obvious. ;)

 

i have redefined my own stance from "pro life" to pro-Human Rights: ALL Humans have rights. There is a proportional use of force in how to handle conflicting rights of humans. That's fodder for another discussion tho, i think.

 

Pro-human rights - interesting. I'm pro-human rights for all humans. We must view and treat each human life - born and unborn - with the dignity it deserves. And how to enforce it - that's another whole can of worms imo.

 

I did address some rights issues in the ectogenesis thread if you want to check that out. Or you can always PM me.

 

I read that thread and found it very interesting. Whether we should actually attempt it or not, I don't know. My faith in the human race being what it is, you know.

 

Janet

[Peek a Boo]

What makes us human? For me, it's the human soul. I know I left science behind and stepped into the religious/supernatural realm.

 

 

-----

These abortion discussions always come down to the same thing as I see it. I see the unborn child as a human with rights. For the pro-choice person, while they might view the fetus as human, they maintain that the woman's rights supersede the rights of the unborn child. In a sense, the woman is the host, the child is a ....parasite? (I need another word.) The woman's rights come first - I think. I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth who is pro-choice. If I said that wrong or am misunderstanding the pro-choice pov, tell me.

 

 

parasite is actually pretty accurate.

 

my issue is that a "soul" simply CAN't be proven scientifically, while a developing human can. I'm trying to stay out of the realm of subjectivity when it comes to such an emotional issue.

 

and even if you get into a woman's vs developing human's rights issue, you are in essence issuing the death penalty to a developing human --so i'm looking at it from a "proportional use of force" stance too.

[Spy Car]

sperm/egg are NOT a developing diploid human.

 

 

Whoa Peep, sounds to me like you are getting close to supporting haploidicide :D

 

These are living human cells, do they deserve no protection because they are "non-diploid"? And how do we know sperm and egg don't have a "soul"?

 

I've seen the "movies", so I know the little wiggle-worms are quite relentless in their "pursuit of happiness" (union with ovum). Are we to deny their potential because they are short chromosomes?

 

Oh the humanity! :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

[HRAAB]

[

quote=Peek a Boo;548358]parasite is actually pretty accurate.

 

Perhaps. But then I think of saying to one of my girls, "You started off as a little parasite." Hmmm. Come to think of it, they're still living off of me.

 

my issue is that a "soul" simply CAN't be proven scientifically, while a developing human can. I'm trying to stay out of the realm of subjectivity when it comes to such an emotional issue.

 

Right. I think many pro-choice people see the unborn child as a developing human but still support the woman's right to terminate. That's why I was saying 'fully human'. So we can prove it's a developing human, but they still say the woman's rights are first. Then what? I'll leave the scientific part to you.

 

and even if you get into a woman's vs developing human's rights issue, you are in essence issuing the death penalty to a developing human --so i'm looking at it from a "proportional use of force" stance too.

 

Yeah, I guess that's where I'm at.

 

Janet

[Peek a Boo]

Whoa Peep, sounds to me like you are getting close to supporting haploidicide :D

 

These are living human cells, do they deserve no protection because they are "non-diploid"? And how do we know sperm and egg don't have a "soul"?

 

I've seen the "movies", so I know the little wiggle-worms are quite relentless in their "pursuit of happiness" (union with ovum). Are we to deny their potential because they are short chromosomes?

 

Oh the humanity! :tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

hm... i do kinda like haploidicide ;)

 

as it stands, we don't protect "every human cell" just because it is human --otherwise beauty parlors and spas would be outta business.

 

but we CAN make a scientific distinction between what IS and what IS NOT:

 

there IS a very observable difference between a single cell developing human and a cell that IS NOT developing into a unique human.

 

we "deny their potential" because potential is something that "IS NOT."

back to why we don't protect just any old human cells. At that point --since they are NOT a developing human, you can er, spill them wherever you want...

:)

 

Back to Human Rights: who gets Human Rights?

Humans.

developing humans.