Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2009-08-11 11:37:54
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6232|Truthistan

Lai wrote:

I tend to dissagree, make it:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

So here are the short answers
1. get pregnant = responsibility taken when concieving it = her choice = no abortion
2. got raped = her choice
3. got a fetus with disabilities = her choice
If we give people full authority over their own body, we might as well legalize heroine and such. The problem is heroine is damaging to the user and also indirectly causes inconvenience at least to other people. Why do you have to wear a seatbelt by law? Because it is supposed to protect you. Same goes to a lesser extend, for abortion. It is not a minor thing, it is very serious (for the mother physically I mean), and while IMO there is no such things as sanctity of an unborn 2 week old heap of cells, it still has potential to develop in a human being which should at least deserve a chance. Also another argument is the responsibility itself. Free unquestioned abortion discourages people from taking it. Adoption is not a birth control measure; there are plenty of birth control measures available. They should usually be taken at an earlier stage and the mother should have made the proper choice then. It fact in that way it is still her body her choice. Now think of socialist Europe where to a large extend abortion is insurrence covered; I pay taxes for you to have a expensive medical procedure, because you were to lazy to eat a pill?
Lai
Its obvious what choice you would make, and there is nothing wrong with expressing strong opinions, but there is a issue when people take their beliefs or their sense of morality and try to enforce those on other people. We live in a free society of individuals, if you want to influence people you do it with ideas. We don't make decision for other people and then use the law like a coercive club to make people fall in line. Living in a free society means people are going to make choices that you disagree with, just like I would disagree with your opinion right now and would think it would be great to stop you from expressing it.... but its your right as a individual person and I also cherish my individual rights and if it means that in order to live in a free society of individuals that you have to put up with some shit that you disagree with, then that is a very small price to pay.

Its the lack of or total disregard for respect for the individual that is missing from the whole choice debate. In fact, most debates, from abortion to homo rights run off the rails when people refuse to respect "others" individal rights and their rights to self determination. Individuals must be able to make choices free from the enforcement of other peoples prejudices if we are to life in a free society of individuals.



In the case of the OP, the question deals with a rape victim... I doubt that under those circumstances that that that person would have much "choice" about "proper and prudent" contraception.

And then there is another issue entirely, if a person must resort to rape in order to breed, then that says something about the judgment of the rapist by potential mates. The guy must be a failure and not meant to breed. If a woman wants or doesn't want to bear the rapists spawn, then that's her choice.
2009-08-11 12:36:50
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6683|The Land of Scott Walker
How about respect for the baby's right to live since respect for the individual is so important ...
2009-08-11 12:45:08
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6922|United States of America
There's no guarantee the baby or mother would survive the birth.
2009-08-11 13:14:06
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6683|The Land of Scott Walker
The likelihood is a virtual certainty for both with modern medicine.  When my son was born 8 weeks early I saw babies 15 weeks early in the special care nursery.
2009-08-11 13:44:31
destruktion_6143
Was ist Loos?
+154|6864|Canada

Pug wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

I laugh at how men fight for pro-life. Who are we to dictate what a woman does with her body? If women fight and protest for pro-life, thats cool, they're allowed, but men should GTFO of those organizations and stop believing you "know" what is best for a woman....

I am pro-choice for the sole reason that I am male and will never know how a woman feels. So how ignorant can I be to try and make rules for what a woman does?
Get married.  Get her pregnant.  And then when she whines about being pregnant, tell tell her you don't give a shit because you don't understand all that "woman magic".

Let me know how that goes.
Yes, because that is exactly what is meant in my post, that I dont care.

"woman magic"? Really? Did I even remotely allude to that?

Look, if you cant come up with a more intelligent response, then dont respond.

Men have no reason to interfere in this issue, because ultimately, a woman can do what she wants with her body. If she gets pregnant, she can choose what to do. If she gets a tattoo, she can choose to keep it or remove it.  If she wants to vote or not, her choice. ETC.

How would you like a woman to lobby about a strictly male issue, dealing with the male body? I know I wouldn't appreciate it, because I would know that she has NO IDEA what it is like.
2009-08-11 14:04:47
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6922|United States of America

Stingray24 wrote:

The likelihood is a virtual certainty for both with modern medicine.  When my son was born 8 weeks early I saw babies 15 weeks early in the special care nursery.
I'm well aware of the science, but you can never be 100% certain. That's why a baby has a "right to live" as you call it, but a fetus doesn't necessarily.
WARNING: 'Nother Heartless Bastard Alert
Spoiler (highlight to read):
You can't act like the fetus knows whats going on during the pregnancy. At that stage, it's basically the same as any other fetus of a mammal speaking from a strict mental capacity perspective. Sure it looks like a baby but it doesn't have any emotional attachmant to the parents yet or even know what the hell is happening.
2009-08-11 14:18:22
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6780|Texas - Bigger than France

destruktion_6143 wrote:

Yes, because that is exactly what is meant in my post, that I dont care.

"woman magic"? Really? Did I even remotely allude to that?

Look, if you cant come up with a more intelligent response, then dont respond.

Men have no reason to interfere in this issue, because ultimately, a woman can do what she wants with her body. If she gets pregnant, she can choose what to do. If she gets a tattoo, she can choose to keep it or remove it.  If she wants to vote or not, her choice. ETC.

How would you like a woman to lobby about a strictly male issue, dealing with the male body? I know I wouldn't appreciate it, because I would know that she has NO IDEA what it is like.
Apologies for being snarkey, we need a "this is funny/sarcasm" font.

Either society as a whole has the right, or the individual has the right.

Pro-Life is based on what happens after the birth...what was missed if the child isn't born.  My point is you are focused ONLY on carrying to term.

Trust me - you're both pregnant, and you both get new responsibilities.

Sure you're a guy, and will never feel the pain (unless you're that pregnant guy).  But when you do have kids...I have a feeling you change your opinion that you have some involvement in child birth before, during and after.  I have a hard time agreeing that I'm a lion that nuts off, then runs off to the savannah to chase gazelles, never to see my lioness or cubs again (need font please).
2009-08-11 15:04:29
Lai
Member
+186|6389

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Lai
Its obvious what choice you would make, and there is nothing wrong with expressing strong opinions, but there is a issue when people take their beliefs or their sense of morality and try to enforce those on other people. We live in a free society of individuals, if you want to influence people you do it with ideas. We don't make decision for other people and then use the law like a coercive club to make people fall in line. Living in a free society means people are going to make choices that you disagree with, just like I would disagree with your opinion right now and would think it would be great to stop you from expressing it.... but its your right as a individual person and I also cherish my individual rights and if it means that in order to live in a free society of individuals that you have to put up with some shit that you disagree with, then that is a very small price to pay.

Its the lack of or total disregard for respect for the individual that is missing from the whole choice debate. In fact, most debates, from abortion to homo rights run off the rails when people refuse to respect "others" individal rights and their rights to self determination. Individuals must be able to make choices free from the enforcement of other peoples prejudices if we are to life in a free society of individuals.



In the case of the OP, the question deals with a rape victim... I doubt that under those circumstances that that that person would have much "choice" about "proper and prudent" contraception.

And then there is another issue entirely, if a person must resort to rape in order to breed, then that says something about the judgment of the rapist by potential mates. The guy must be a failure and not meant to breed. If a woman wants or doesn't want to bear the rapists spawn, then that's her choice.
I understand even agree with your point completely, but is can only maintain its validity by making one assumption; that the unborn child has no status as a person whatshowever untill it is born or untill it has developped to a certain level. If one accepts any level of personhood for the unborn, it is no longer just "her body" the woman is deciding for and as such she infringes on the right of other individuals much in the same way as you proposed I would. She is enforcing her decision not just on herself, but also on the baby and its father. With a voluntarily concieved pregnancy, one could say it is just as much his blood as it is hers. In reality it seldom occurs that the would be father whishes to keep the baby while the would be mother wishes to have it aborted, but in theory it becomes clear that the rights of the father are not taken into consideration at all regarding free abortion. There is no clean cut solution for the abortion dilemma, someone will always have his or her rights infringed; the child, the mother, and/or the father. Therefore, and I am aware that this is an opinion in itself, the best way to deal with it would be to take into account the responsability taken, to be taken, or that should have been taken, by all parties involved.

Regarding rape I've already made clear that's it is the womam's own choice entirely.
2009-08-11 16:02:18
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6780|Texas - Bigger than France
^^^
what Lai said +1
2009-08-11 21:02:44
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7058
Its the lack of or total disregard for respect for the individual that is missing from the whole choice debate. In fact, most debates, from abortion to homo rights run off the rails when people refuse to respect "others" individal rights and their rights to self determination. Individuals must be able to make choices free from the enforcement of other peoples prejudices if we are to life in a free society of individuals.
the whole point of law is to curtain some individual rights in order to guarantee certain other individual rights. allowing a 'free choice' = supporting abortion, because some percentage of women will always choose it. in a moral debate like this, you can't hide behind 'free choice', you have to justify that the negatives of your position are outweighed by the positives.

what are the negatives and positives of supporting the abortion of rape fetuses?

we are pitting one life against another: the fetus against the mother. almost everyone here [predictably] argues in favor of abortion, which is unsurprising given the adolescent male majority here.

this implies at least one of the following:

[1]you think the fetus isn't a person therefore its life is less valuable than the risk to the mother
[2]you think the fetus IS a person, but its life is less valuable than the risk to the mother
[3]it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person or not, the mother always gets to decide

in case of [1], what do you define as a person then? when does a fetus become a human being? there can be no real policy made unless you provide a clear criterion.

in case of [2], you would be under burden of having to justify why one person's life is less valuable than another

in case of [3], you have to show that the woman's right to choose is more valuable than the fetus's life

keep in mind we are talking about rape cases exclusively.
2009-08-11 22:25:41
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6919|Disaster Free Zone
The responsibilities of being a mother start well before birth. To an expectant mother who does not want the child but is forced to, has the option of adoption after birth. But during the pregnancy she may also have to change facets of their life such as smoking, drinking alcohol & caffeine, partying, taking drugs and vigorous exercise etc. To a mother who has no desire for the child the above activities will unlikely be stopped potentially causing serious damage to the babies health before birth. So unless you are going to outlaw all the above activities for pregnant women then by forcing them to carry their baby to term is not just an infringement on the womens individual rights but possibly on the health of the 'baby' too.

The body also naturally aborts many perfectly healthy fetuses for numerous reasons including stress & depression, why can't we take what the body does naturally and add an element of intelligence so we are able to choose when and where we bring another life into the world to best suit the parents and give the best possible upbringing for the child.

To Krappyappy. I choose 1 and 3, and I'm talking about all case, not just one. A person is a person when they are born and the women in much more important then the fetus. Reason: The mother dies they both die, the fetus dies only the fetus dies, simple logic.
2009-08-11 23:53:47
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6232|Truthistan

Krappyappy wrote:

Its the lack of or total disregard for respect for the individual that is missing from the whole choice debate. In fact, most debates, from abortion to homo rights run off the rails when people refuse to respect "others" individal rights and their rights to self determination. Individuals must be able to make choices free from the enforcement of other peoples prejudices if we are to life in a free society of individuals.
the whole point of law is to curtain some individual rights in order to guarantee certain other individual rights. allowing a 'free choice' = supporting abortion, because some percentage of women will always choose it. in a moral debate like this, you can't hide behind 'free choice', you have to justify that the negatives of your position are outweighed by the positives.

what are the negatives and positives of supporting the abortion of rape fetuses?

we are pitting one life against another: the fetus against the mother. almost everyone here [predictably] argues in favor of abortion, which is unsurprising given the adolescent male majority here.

this implies at least one of the following:

[1]you think the fetus isn't a person therefore its life is less valuable than the risk to the mother
[2]you think the fetus IS a person, but its life is less valuable than the risk to the mother
[3]it doesn't matter if the fetus is a person or not, the mother always gets to decide

in case of [1], what do you define as a person then? when does a fetus become a human being? there can be no real policy made unless you provide a clear criterion.

in case of [2], you would be under burden of having to justify why one person's life is less valuable than another

in case of [3], you have to show that the woman's right to choose is more valuable than the fetus's life

keep in mind we are talking about rape cases exclusively.
"the whole point of law is to curtain some individual rights in order to guarantee certain other individual rights"

There are two points
First, the problem is that the exercise of individual rights is made by person capable of thought and action. A fetus can do neither, in fact an abortion like a birth is the point at which the fetus can begin to exercise their right to life, to breath and to grow and eventually with education to excerise rights based on higher function. If an embryo or fetus were capable of survival or viablilty then there is probably decision for soceity to make as to whether to intervene to help the fetus survive by changing the abortion into a birth. But unless the fetus is capable of surviving outside the woman then the fetus is incapable of excerising any rights and therefore it has none. IMO people inherently recognize this and that is why there is less resistance to banning late term abortions. To put it bluntly, if you pull the kid from the womb and it can say "give me my rights", in otherwords cry, then I say welcome to the persons club.

Second, the exercise of individual rights extends to the point where that exercise begins to infringe on the rights of another individual. This could be look at as the respect barrier, in order to have a society of individuals you have to have a level of respect/ common sense towards not treading on the rights of others. Afterall, why should your rights be respected if you exercise them in a fashion that denies the rights of others. The hallmark of being an individual is the right to make choices, some would even call it a divine gift that people have fought and slayed tyrants to obtain and preserve. So the point is that its the womans choice, why should some other individual feel that they have an entitlement to exercise their rights to tread over her right of choice. If society is to be based on mutual respect, and a person feels the necessity to exercise strongly held religious beliefs or moral beliefs on another person, why should society respect that persons right to free religious expression or their rights of free speech or even their rights to participate in the political process when the purpose of such exercise is to deny or disrespect the rights of another individual.

No group defines society, no group defines the nations morality, mobs have no rights and might does not make right, we all come to the same table as individuals.





But, I would add at this point that if "society" wants to intervene then it needs to step up with more than just words and platitudes like respect life, it needs to put up some hard currency if its going to "save a life" because the whole anti-choice debate relies on the fact that its cheap to deny the choice because it simply foists all the costs of "society's decision" on the woman. The whole right to life issue is a cheap (and dirty) denial issue for republicans because they can act like they are actually doing something when in fact it costs the taxpayer nothing and all the costs of their high moral stance are born on women of questionable morality. For the democrats, their cheap denial issues is gun rights. IMO if taxpayers had to foot the bills for "society's choice" to have a baby then the debate would look a lot different, because then it starts to look like "socialism" which in truth it is. So, if in deed, a fetus is a person with rights to be protected by society and the moral socialists deem it necessary to infringe on individual rights to save that life then that fetus is a citizen entitled to the government assitance and that means that the society needs to step up and put its money where its morality is and pay to birth and raise this kid. But I believe that's the point where people balk and cry but it was her choice to have sex and that's promescuity and therefore she needs to step up to her responsibilities, which have conveniently been foisted on her by moral socialists' choice to deny her right to choose.

You can't have it both ways, either you're a socialist or you have to put your trust in individual rights, there is no middle ground.
2009-08-12 04:14:01
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6649|'Murka

DesertFox- wrote:

There's no guarantee the baby or mother would survive the birth.
There's no guarantee you will survive the day. Does that give your life less worth?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-08-12 07:41:05
Krappyappy
'twice cooked beef!'
+111|7058

Diesel_dyk wrote:

But unless the fetus is capable of surviving outside the woman then the fetus is incapable of excerising any rights and therefore it has none.
the earliest pre-term survival was an infant born at 21 weeks. so rape fetuses are protected after this point from being aborted?

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Second, the exercise of individual rights extends to the point where that exercise begins to infringe on the rights of another individual.
some rights are inherently at odds with each other. my right to own that rock is directly opposed to your right to own that rock. my right to spew hateful speech is directly opposed to your right not to be abused. someone had to decide in each case whose rights were more worthy.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

No group defines society, no group defines the nations morality, mobs have no rights and might does not make right, we all come to the same table as individuals.
i pretty much disagree with everything in that sentence.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

You can't have it both ways, either you're a socialist or you have to put your trust in individual rights, there is no middle ground.
how's that for a bipolar thought? better debunk it.
2009-08-12 09:00:11
destruktion_6143
Was ist Loos?
+154|6864|Canada

Pug wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

Yes, because that is exactly what is meant in my post, that I dont care.

"woman magic"? Really? Did I even remotely allude to that?

Look, if you cant come up with a more intelligent response, then dont respond.

Men have no reason to interfere in this issue, because ultimately, a woman can do what she wants with her body. If she gets pregnant, she can choose what to do. If she gets a tattoo, she can choose to keep it or remove it.  If she wants to vote or not, her choice. ETC.

How would you like a woman to lobby about a strictly male issue, dealing with the male body? I know I wouldn't appreciate it, because I would know that she has NO IDEA what it is like.
Apologies for being snarkey, we need a "this is funny/sarcasm" font.

Either society as a whole has the right, or the individual has the right.

Pro-Life is based on what happens after the birth...what was missed if the child isn't born.  My point is you are focused ONLY on carrying to term.

Trust me - you're both pregnant, and you both get new responsibilities.

Sure you're a guy, and will never feel the pain (unless you're that pregnant guy).  But when you do have kids...I have a feeling you change your opinion that you have some involvement in child birth before, during and after.  I have a hard time agreeing that I'm a lion that nuts off, then runs off to the savannah to chase gazelles, never to see my lioness or cubs again (need font please).
I have no doubt being a husband and having a child on the way connects you and your wife.

But it still doesnt change the fact that men are trying to tell ALL women that they dont have the right to an abortion. Husbands obviously have a say in their wives decision to keep their baby or not, but they dont have a right to tell anyone else what to do.
2009-08-12 09:10:08
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6780|Texas - Bigger than France
Based on your reasoning, why would it be restricted to just men then?

It seems like no one should have the right to tell anyone else what to do with their own body.  Why just men?

Unless of course, there is something invested in the pregnancy from an outside party.
2009-08-12 09:14:46
destruktion_6143
Was ist Loos?
+154|6864|Canada

Pug wrote:

Based on your reasoning, why would it be restricted to just men then?

It seems like no one should have the right to tell anyone else what to do with their own body.  Why just men?

Unless of course, there is something invested in the pregnancy from an outside party.
Thats true, there shouldnt be laws telling people what they can or cannot do with their bodies.

But I know your are going to hit me with, "why not legalize heroin and blah blah blah"

Abortion is a womans right to her own body, you believe that you have the right to decide what she should do?
2009-08-12 09:17:00
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6780|Texas - Bigger than France
She has the right to decide.  I've said that all along.

Since the issue is politically unstable, however, it's always important to point out the pros/cons of the decision.  I think that's what were doing here, no?
2009-08-12 09:22:54
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6232|Truthistan

Krappyappy wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

But unless the fetus is capable of surviving outside the woman then the fetus is incapable of excerising any rights and therefore it has none.
the earliest pre-term survival was an infant born at 21 weeks. so rape fetuses are protected after this point from being aborted?

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Second, the exercise of individual rights extends to the point where that exercise begins to infringe on the rights of another individual.
some rights are inherently at odds with each other. my right to own that rock is directly opposed to your right to own that rock. my right to spew hateful speech is directly opposed to your right not to be abused. someone had to decide in each case whose rights were more worthy.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

No group defines society, no group defines the nations morality, mobs have no rights and might does not make right, we all come to the same table as individuals.
i pretty much disagree with everything in that sentence.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

You can't have it both ways, either you're a socialist or you have to put your trust in individual rights, there is no middle ground.
how's that for a bipolar thought? better debunk it.
I think you glossed over the important point if the fetus is not capable of surviving outside the woman then the fetus is incapable of excerising any rights and therefore it has none and society is no proxy for the decision of the individual no matter how fervent the belief.


First, please show me where it is in the constitution that entrenches the rights of "Family" or mob or group rights. the constitution doesn't do that, it only sets out individual rights. It does set out a representative democracy, but those authorities are limited by individual rights. despite this fact some groups try to usurp authority not granted to them under the constitution under the banner of "family" or "think of the children" or some other platitude none of which gives them authority. So you can disagree, but there are no mob rights and no group defines society, its individuals who define our society

Second, The unit used in our constitution is the individual. When people mob together to deny rights to others, they have no authority whatsoever to enforce their will on other individuals. Social conservatives are the worst socialists because they delude themselves into thinking that they are conservatives. If you are attempting to enforce your morality on another individual then you are engaged in social/moral engineering and that makes you a socialist. I for one would put my trust in the decision of the individual who has the most interest at stake and has all the relevant facts to make that decision on their own behalf. I'm not comfortable with the idea of leting the mob rule and I bellieve that when people act in groups to usurp the rights of an individual then that is the antithesis of principles enshrined in our consitution. There is no middle ground, either respect an individuals rights of choice and self determination or accept the fact that your engaged in socialist activity. And that goes for everything from guns, abortion, religion to property, you take the constitution in its entirety, you don't get to pick and choose as some groups would like.

So I would say that if a person wants to live by a moral code that they construct for themself and if there are others engaged in similar activity, then they should piously group together in a corner and bask in the glow of similar thought and if another individual comes along and wants to engage that group and adopt those views then that is fine. I would however draw the line at disrespectful mobs with proverbial pitch forks and torches hunting down none believers and using inquisitors to enforce their morality on others.

In this country we believe in self determination, we believe in the individual.
2009-08-12 09:37:43
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6819|SE London

Krappyappy wrote:

does a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape have the right to an abortion?
ANY woman who becomes pregnant has a right to an abortion.
2009-08-12 09:39:52
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6735

Bertster7 wrote:

Krappyappy wrote:

does a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape have the right to an abortion?
ANY woman who becomes pregnant has a right to an abortion.
see Roe v. Wade
2009-08-12 17:23:16
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6922|United States of America

FEOS wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

There's no guarantee the baby or mother would survive the birth.
There's no guarantee you will survive the day. Does that give your life less worth?
I have already been born though. I came closer than most, but ended up living.
2009-08-12 20:26:50
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6643|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

There's no guarantee the baby or mother would survive the birth.
There's no guarantee you will survive the day. Does that give your life less worth?
Hey, I'm all for banning abortion if that means that all the pro-lifers will pay for and house all of the unwanted children that would result from it via higher taxes.

Until you're willing to make that kind of commitment, it's just talk.
2009-08-13 02:42:02
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7013|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

There's no guarantee the baby or mother would survive the birth.
There's no guarantee you will survive the day. Does that give your life less worth?
Hey, I'm all for banning abortion if that means that all the pro-lifers will pay for and house all of the unwanted children that would result from it via higher taxes.

Until you're willing to make that kind of commitment, it's just talk.
yeah, but you are forgetting the following little things:
pregnancy practically disables women - for several months at least. each has to postpone her career development and other stuff to bear and give birth to that bloody child. what if she doesn't want to disrupt her life?
also, pregnancy always changes her body - some of those changes may be permanent and outright ugly, some cannot even be fixed with plastic surgery - not to mention the cost of that stuff. what if the woman doesn't want to take that risk?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2009-08-14 03:16:17
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6649|'Murka

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I think you glossed over the important point if the fetus is not capable of surviving outside the woman then the fetus is incapable of excerising any rights and therefore it has none and society is no proxy for the decision of the individual no matter how fervent the belief.
So a person with a severe handicap--who is incapable of exercising their rights--has none?

Seriously?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard