Academy of Jedi Arts Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 It's not about "pointing fingers" it's about recognizing Basic Human Rights. So are you also fighting for the basic human right for people to marry the person they love, even if that person is of the same gender? How about the basic human rights of women who have been raped or are victims of incest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 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. --- 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. Janet ...what.....?? you don't look at your kids w/ a big ol' grin and say "you're just the cutest little parasite there is!!" ;) but really, "parasite" --like zygote/embryo/ fetus-- is just another scientific term to describe a relationship/stage. Scientific terms do not assign worth --people assign worth :) and yeah --a person doesn't have "first" rights over another: we recognize several scales of how one's rights take precedence over another's rights in certain cases. And in every case, a human's right to LIVE is seen as a huge, HUGE right to take away and one that almost always takes precedence over another's right to "not be inconvenienced." In fact, many people are expected to suffer all kinds of inconveniences in order for that right to life of that other individual to be protected. So there's already a precedence in how to deal w/ conflicting rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 So are you also fighting for the basic human right for people to marry the person they love, even if that person is of the same gender? am I fighting for it? no. I don't consider "marriage" to be a Basic Human Right. a BASIC right would be one that a human needs to exist: life, food, water, shelter, and in most instances, clothing to protect us from our environment. But I even have a problem putting clothing in a "basic human right" category. Humans can exist quite well w/o being involved in a legally recognized marriage. I do support the right of people to love whomever they want --that's a right anyone has already. Everyone can love and live with whomever they want as it stands now. I mentioned previously that I would support the government recognizing "civil unions" for everyone, and leaving "marriages" up to the church. Kinda like, even tho I am [almost] legally divorced, scripturally I am still maried to my husband. So whatever the LAW says is of no consequence to how my religion sees it. How about the basic human rights of women who have been raped or are victims of incest? Which basic human rights? The right to seek legal retribution? they got that. The right to live? got that. The right to eat? that too. The right to clean sanitary water? yup. The right to shelter? lots of places offer that too. The right to clothing? they aren't deprived of that either. or do you want them to have the "right" to kill another human? I don't see a "Basic Human Right" as extending to depriving another of THEIR basic human rights. you'll have to define what YOU see as a "Basic Human Right" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Academy of Jedi Arts Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 OK- I just know a TON of people who are pro-life but anti gay rights and I'm thrilled to know you aren't one of them. Just so you know though, that if my friend's partner gets sick or dies, she has none of the same rights that I would if my spouse got sick or died. And that's just for starters. If you are economically well off, heterosexual, and Caucasian in America, there are a lot of rights that are often taken for granted- by myself included. As to the other issue, I do not think a woman who has been raped should be forced to carry the baby of the man who raped her, but I respect your right to disagree there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 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. no, you misunderstand what I wrote?? When a woman aborts, it is NOT for the sake of the fetus. It's: - to avoid caring for a medical problem child - to avoid finanical loss - to avoid life difficulty for HER. There's absolutely no way she can claim she's killing off the kid for it's own good. They could be as wonderful and charitiable as possible in many other areas and it still wouldn't change that apparently their sentiments and desire to help their fellow man ended when it came that "man" being an unborn baby. For some reason, they didn't make the leap of logic that such a thing as a fetus is just as worthy of their efforts as any other kindness towards their fellow man. 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. yes, I didn't mean to come off as combative with you. I knew what you were trying to describe. My point was that such a choice is a dangerous slope to step on.:) What does constitute fully human. What makes us human? For me, it's the human soul. I know I left science behind and stepped into the religious/supernatural realm. Well I'd agree with you. But even so, one can have a soul and be inhumane. (kid beaters and murderers abound as evidence of that) Something cannot have a soul and still be classified as living. (I find considerable satisfaction in the growth of my water lilies and koi pond.) A human is a human. Just like a tree is a tree. There's many different kinds of trees, but no one is arguing that it's not a tree if it's not a tree they want to have. No one says, "Well I don't consider that a tree" and base whether they kill it or not on that. They're at least honest and say "I don't care if it's a tree. I don't care if I planted it. I don't want it and I'm chopping it down and getting rid of it." If pro-choice were honest, I'd still think their stance wrong, but at least I *might* be able to respect their honesty. They want to call it something other than human, or not fully human, because that clears their conscience about killing it or letting others kill it. 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 Sure I get that. They would be wrong.:) The circumstance of conception, location, size, or development of my children does not EVER give me the right to kill them. I don't have any more right to life than any one of them or you. I absolutely do not have a greater right to avoid physical difficulty for 9 months than anyone has to actually stay alive.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 When a woman aborts, it is NOT for the sake of the fetus. It's: - to avoid caring for a medical problem child - to avoid finanical loss - to avoid life difficulty for HER. There's absolutely no way she can claim she's killing off the kid for it's own good. See, I'm not sure about this. If the baby has a medical condition that is incompatible with life, is it really kinder or more humane to allow the fetus to grow and develop until it dies naturally? Might it not be kinder in some cases to abort the baby before it develops more complex systems more capable of feeling pain? I don't know for sure that it would be kinder to abort, but I consider it a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peek a Boo Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 OK- I just know a TON of people who are pro-life but anti gay rights and I'm thrilled to know you aren't one of them. Just so you know though, that if my friend's partner gets sick or dies, she has none of the same rights that I would if my spouse got sick or died. And that's just for starters. If you are economically well off, heterosexual, and Caucasian in America, there are a lot of rights that are often taken for granted- by myself included. As to the other issue, I do not think a woman who has been raped should be forced to carry the baby of the man who raped her, but I respect your right to disagree there. Yes, i would support civil unions by the gvt to assign equal rights to gays and to provide a standardized vehicle for the gvt to operate. I would NOT, however, support gays being married from a scriptural POV. Just as i do NOT support people shacking up, sleeping around, or getting married just to take advantage of tax benefits, altho alll those are legal. But i do see a difference in the two establishments, and realize that there will always be a church that will marry gays. and on the flip side of the next issue, if you are caucasian there are a LOT of things that you are NOT eligible for: scholarships, programs, etc JUST because you aren't a minority skin color. Racism is alive and well. and no, I just don't think a human should be killed because their father committed a crime. i have a very difficult time trying to see how killing a human that has done nothing wrong is a Basic Human Right. Just like i don't believe being a victim of a horrible crime gives ANYONE the "right" to kill anyone else. but I would be open to a compromise via the ectogenesis thread ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted September 22, 2008 Share Posted September 22, 2008 If the baby has a medical condition that is incompatible with life, is it really kinder or more humane to allow the fetus to grow and develop until it dies naturally? Might it not be kinder in some cases to abort the baby before it develops more complex systems more capable of feeling pain? I don't know for sure that it would be kinder to abort, but I consider it a possibility. hmm. Is pain a disqualifier for a right to life? Life is full of pain. For all of us. To suggest that avoiding letting another feel pain is a just reason to kill them.... Do you have any idea how many people would say that about the elderly, the disabled? Yikes. There's that nasty slippery slope again.;) No. I can't agree with that. Even if I could agree that pain, even great sufferring, were a valid reason for someone to feel like they'd rather be dead - I could never agree to make that choice for them and kill them. (And no, I'm not pro-suicide either. Suicide is a sign of emotional/mental disorder.) What is unbearable pain to you, might be very tolorable to me. Likewise, I couldn't say that I know it's better for an unborn baby to be dead than to suffer in some way. That doesn't mean I don't see sufferring for the heartbreak it is. Just that I don't view a right to life being based on a right to a life without sufferring for any of us, no matter our age or condition in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 just to be clear.... Even in cases of severe birth defect such as tay sachs, trisomy or hydrocephalic, people do choose to continue the pregnancy. I'm sure there are decent people who would choose not to do so. Most likely due to pressure from the medical establishment and others. Sadly there is rare support for them to continue the pregnancy. Decent people make wrong choices all the time. Esp when under extreme fear, stress, and heartbreak. I don't think they are monsters or whatever for their choice. But I don't think their decision to terminate is right either. I absolutely don't think they should be so terribly pressured to to make that choice. I found cases fairly easily on the net of those who did decide to continue such a pregnancy. Don't click without a box of tissues. Esp if you're nearly 7 months pregnant. Take it from me, you'll make a soggy mess of yourself.:crying: The birth of Anouk The Story of Baby Lee A child living with tay sachs Iit should also be noted that the level of accuracy for tests on these things is highly questionable too. Maybe it's the homeschooler in me, but I don't put a whole lot of trust in any test these days.;) They have there place I suppose, but I would never want to bank a life on one. But that's likely a whole other thread topic!:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 just to be clear.... Even in cases of severe birth defect such as tay sachs, trisomy or hydrocephalic, people do choose to continue the pregnancy. I'm sure there are decent people who would choose not to do so. Most likely due to pressure from the medical establishment and others. Sadly there is rare support for them to continue the pregnancy. Decent people make wrong choices all the time. Esp when under extreme fear, stress, and heartbreak. I don't think they are monsters or whatever for their choice. But I don't think their decision to terminate is right either. I absolutely don't think they should be so terribly pressured to to make that choice. I found cases fairly easily on the net of those who did decide to continue such a pregnancy. Don't click without a box of tissues. Esp if you're nearly 7 months pregnant. Take it from me, you'll make a soggy mess of yourself.:crying: The birth of Anouk The Story of Baby Lee A child living with tay sachs Iit should also be noted that the level of accuracy for tests on these things is highly questionable too. Maybe it's the homeschooler in me, but I don't put a whole lot of trust in any test these days.;) They have there place I suppose, but I would never want to bank a life on one. But that's likely a whole other thread topic!:) I agree that no one should be pressured to abort a baby with a fatal diagnosis, and that there should be support for families who choose to continue a pregnancy when the baby has a fatal diagnosis. And yes, a test can be wrong. (My very active, lively toddler was originally given a less than 1% chance of being born alive.) I think doctors delivering bad news should stress that and should encourage follow-up tests before any permanent decision is made. Our doctor did not do a good job of this. We found internet message boards to be the best source of information on possible outcomes and follow-up tests. Scary. But I have listened to women agonize over whether to continue a pregnancy when various tests confirm the fatal diagnosis of their much-wanted child. And I do not believe that they are motivated by selfishness. I do think they are concerned with their child. And that was the point in the previous post that I felt called to comment on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 But I have listened to women agonize over whether to continue a pregnancy when various tests confirm the fatal diagnosis of their much-wanted child. And I do not believe that they are motivated by selfishness. I do think they are concerned with their child. I have a friend who is a very devout Christian. She had a brother who was adopted who ended up having some sort of severe genetic disorder (I don't know what it was). She grew up and had a biological child with the same condition. Her son was diagnosed while she pregnant with her second child. Test revealed that the baby she was carrying also had the same condition. She chose to have an abortion. She told me, "I know that God will send me to hell for this, but I am willing to do that to send this baby straight to heaven and spare him from torture on earth." Reasonable people may disagree on whether abortion is ever warranted, but parents agonize over these decisions and, in the case of my friend, are willing to go to hell (if that's what they believe) to spare their children's suffering. Tara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts