abortion

concerro · Post by **concerro** » Sat Sep 11, 2004 9:39 am

Is it right that a woman can terminate a pregnancy without the father's consent even if her life is not endangered by the pregnancy but if the father does not want the child and the woman wants to keep it he cant do anything

Forge · Post by **Forge** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:03 am

steen wrote:If the person is bleeding to death, it is. Would the patient then have the right to force you to give blood?

No, because it was not the donors fault the life-threatening circumstances ocurred.

So we know that people **WILL** die if they can't force others to give up a kidney. Yet, they don't have that right, and 10,000s of them die every year because they DON'T have the right to use your bodily resources against your will.

However, we have not first given the kidney and then taken it away.

Therefore, why doesn't this PERSON'S "right to life" trumph your bodily integrity? After all, you insist that the Fetus' "right to life" trumphs the woman's right to bodily integrity.

The two cases are different, can't you see?

Are women second-class citizens with fewer rights than the rest of us?

Are unborn fetuses?

And thus, the woman can be forced? That surely is bad news for those with rare blood types, they can be forced to give blood because they are the only ones available to help the bleeder with rare blood types.

That, unfortunately, is a straw-man.

If they are bleeding to death, a blood transfusion is an IMPERATIVE part of their environment. Without it they will die. Like the kidney patient.

However, a blood donor has not first given blood and then taken it away.

Yet, you say such death through deprivation of resources necessary for life is not illegal. That is, UNLESS it is a fetus in a pregnant woman. So we are back to the fetus having more rights and the woman having fewer.

Are you kidding? The fetus is murdered just because a woman doesn't like it.

You keep equivocating an act of violence against the fetus to an act of nonchalance.

Still leaving the woman as second-class citizen and the fetus as some form of super-citizen with extra rights.

You compare two radically different acts.

First, the pregnancy process is a natural process, whereas a rare disease is unnatural. Thus, a person who does not lift a finger to help a blood-needy person is only "guilty" of lukewarmness; on the other hand, a person who intentionally deprives the fetus of an already existing condition is guilty of something else entirely.

Second, you confuse the intentions. As I said, a person who refuses a transfusion is simply callous. On the other hand, an abortion's intent is to take the life of an innocent human being, which is murder.

Let me ask you a completely different question:
What is a worse crime: slavery or murder?

steen · Post by **steen** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:52 am

Forge wrote:
steen wrote:If the person is bleeding to death, it is. Would the patient then have the right to force you to give blood?
No, because it was not the donors fault the life-threatening circumstances ocurred.

"FAULT"!?!?! So pregnancy is punishment for the woman not living up to prolife patriarchal, theocratic morals? That sure is strong evidence of PL goals involving the control of women.

So we know that people **WILL** die if they can't force others to give up a kidney. Yet, they don't have that right, and 10,000s of them die every year because they DON'T have the right to use your bodily resources against your will.
However, we have not first given the kidney and then taken it away.

Ah, but now you are running off on a tangent. The question was about whether persons have a "right to life."

You are obviously saying that the "right to life" of a kidney patient person doesn't extend to use of other persons' bodily resources against their will. Yet you insist that the Fetus person's "right to life" does just that. So the fetus person lives and the kidney patient person dies. Why does the fetus person have more rights?

Therefore, why doesn't this PERSON'S "right to life" trump your bodily integrity? After all, you insist that the Fetus' "right to life" trumps the woman's right to bodily integrity.
The two cases are different, can't you see?

Rather, YOU are not seeing that per the person scenario and "right to life" of a person, both are about one person needing another person's bodily resources to survive, and you only allowing one to take those resources forcefully, and insisting that SOME persons have the right to refuse such unwilling extraction of their bodily resources, while the woman doesn't. That clearly makes her a second-class citizen.

Are women second-class citizens with fewer rights than the rest of us?
Are unborn fetuses?

Yes, they are. Now, back to the question. Is the pregnant woman a second-class citizen, whose bodily resources can be taken against her will? Since you are insisting that YOUR bodily resources can not be taken against your will, yet you insist that she MUST submit to such force, how are you NOT enslaving her, while insisting on not be bound by the same rules of enslavement as you want to impose on her?

And thus, the woman can be forced? That surely is bad news for those with rare blood types, they can be forced to give blood because they are the only ones available to help the bleeder with rare blood types.
That, unfortunately, is a straw-man.

No, it is your argument, that if only you can provide the bodily resources needed, then you can be forced to do so.

If they are bleeding to death, a blood transfusion is an IMPERATIVE part of their environment. Without it they will die. Like the kidney patient.
However, a blood donor has not first given blood and then taken it away.

Ah, so it is not about the person's rights, but rather about the "guilt" of the donor? Yes, that brings us right back to the misogyny.

Yet, you say such death through deprivation of resources necessary for life is not illegal. That is, UNLESS it is a fetus in a pregnant woman. So we are back to the fetus having more rights and the woman having fewer.
Are you kidding? The fetus is murdered just because a woman doesn't like it.

Murder is the illegal killing of a person. Why don't you drop the hyperbole? Now, would you actually answer the point? Or do you have no interest in actual dialogue on this issue? Now, the above was per your own words. Do you stand by them or not?

You keep equivocating an act of violence against the fetus to an act of nonchalance.

So you keep focusing on what is "done to" the one who "wants to take" the resources. That you thus ignore the woman's point of view is duly noted. To her, there is no difference. Either you are forced to give of your bodily resources or not. What is it? Or are you one of those who say that the woman doesn't matter, that she is merely a self-propelled uterus?

Still leaving the woman as second-class citizen and the fetus as some form of super-citizen with extra rights.
You compare two radically different acts.

So you keep claiming. Forced resource extraction by one entity against an unwilling second entity. the scenarios are exactly the same. So either deal with it or say that you can't. But your attempt at ignoring the point simply will not work.

First, the pregnancy process is a natural process, whereas a rare disease is unnatural.

Nothing is more natural than diseases. Are you saying that diseases are artificial constructs? TREATMENT of diseases is artificial. Diseases are not. So your claim simply is outright wrong.

Thus, a person who does not lift a finger to help a blood-needy person is only "guilty" of lukewarmness;

No, they are guilty of not provide bodily resources to an entity who needs it to fulfill its "right to life." You are saying that one can be forced and the other can not. That the woman can be forced, but you cannot. How very convenient for you. Other than your argument being self-serving, is there a "right to life" per your argument?

on the other hand, a person who intentionally deprives the fetus of an already existing condition is guilty of something else entirely.

"something else entirely" You are really going wild on vagueness and euphemisms. She, as you, would be "guilty" of not providing bodily resources to keep another "entity" alive. Is it wrong? Should it be illegal? Or should it only be illegal for her, while you want to be excused from such a duty? Why the double-standard?

Second, you confuse the intentions.

The intentions are to not wanting to give of your bodily resources. There is no difference in intent.

As I said, a person who refuses a transfusion is simply callous.

No less than the woman refusing to provide of her bodily resources.

On the other hand, an abortion's intent is to take the life of an innocent human being, which is murder.

As the fetus is not an individual, it also is not a "being," proelife revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding. And as abortion already is not murder, it clearly shows how contrived your argument is. Now, do you at all have interest in realistic arguments instead of hyperbole?

Let me ask you a completely different question:
What is a worse crime: slavery or murder?

Either are crimes.

Now, are you actually going to answer the points I raised above, or are you going to continue to avoid them? So far you sure haven't addressed them yet.

Lycan · Post by **Lycan** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:22 am

Lame copout. Are you afraid of actually addressing what I am saying?

A lame copout, just because I refuse to repeat myself over and over. Riiiight....

And that is why, when this is appealed up through the legal system, the verdict will be thrown out as unconstitutional.

Wow, all this charm and psychic too...

Yes, I agree that your argument was laughable.

...and yet you still don't understand it, hmmmm.....

So you are some kind of self-loathing masochist who likes to have your stressors and physical discomfort ignored and devalued. Who would have thought...!

No, I am some kind of responsible adult that is not so self centered and selfish to think that everything is about me.

Don't blame your inability of being clear in your posts on my understanding.

And don't blame me for your intellectual inadequacies.

Kind of like the potential life of a bleeder in exhange for 15 minutes of giving blood by you. Eh? You still refuse to be forced to give blood against your will for 15 minutes, yet debase 9 months of unwanted pregnancy?

This argument in moot in regards to me... I would not need to be forced. I would give blood or do whatever I could to help, because as I have said not everything is about me or my comfort.

Nope. I am saying that your being upset with my disagreement is childish, narcissistic in its claim that mere disagreement is uncivil

Point being I was never upset (am still not upset), If you reread the posts I believe the lack of civility began on your side of the fence, I return what is given to me.

Ah, look how cute. A "because I say so" prolife postulation that beliefs are facts. (Yes, THAT was snide.)

Kind of like this?:

So you are some kind of self-loathing masochist who likes to have your stressors and physical discomfort ignored and devalued. Who would have thought...!

and this:

Nope. I am saying that your being upset with my disagreement is childish, narcissistic in its claim that mere disagreement is uncivil.

and this:

You are a man, aren't you? Because only a man would be so ignorant of what a pregnancy means to the woman.

and this:

TRANSLATION: The prolife argument is not good enough, so I won't deal with it, or how it exposes the poor idea of my original claim.

should I go on? Such the hypocrite.....

Post by **otseng** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 9:38 am

OK, let's try to keep this discussion civil. I know it's kinda hard considering the controversial nature of this topic. But, the rules are the rules. In particular, let's do try to follow rules 1 and 14:

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed.
14. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.

keltzkroz · Post by **keltzkroz** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:38 am

steen wrote: Just as the patient bleeding to death. Just like the patient in kidney failure. They are all persons. Yet, without somebody's bodily resources, they will die. That is especially true for those in kidney failure. There are NEVER enough donated kidneys for those who need them, and some WILL die because they don't have the right to forcibly (but safely) extract your kidney.

So merely being a person doesn't give the right to use another person's bodily resources against their will. Does the kidney patient have a "right to live" that extends to taking bodily resources without permission?

Its funny how you chose people with kidney failure as one of your examples. Trust me, I know what it feels. Last time I checked, nobody is actually forcing me to die by kidney failure (lucky for me, Im not yet dying). Abortion forces the person being aborted to die by abortion. Big difference.

Well, that IS the rub, isn't it? You want to be able to force her to give of her bodily resources even against her will. And this is because you believe that if the fetus is a person, then it has the right to those resources regardless of the woman's willingness to give them. Now, I am waiting to see if you accept that a kidney patient can fore you to safely give up your extra kidney so that he can avoid dying?
Your being forced to give up bodily resources to a person to satisfy his/her "right to life" shouldn't be any different. Unless, of course, you have some OTHER qualifier in there about duties that you haven't mentioned yet?

I addressed this above. On one case, we have a kidney patient who needs a kidney to live , but no one wants to donate a kidney (ever heard about dialysis machines? ), while on the other case, we have a person who needs the mother's womb to live, but she does not want that person to use it. Please tell me in which case is a person being forced to die?

She should have the right to not give those resources if she doesn't want to. After all, YOU have that right, the right to not be forced to give of your bodily resources against your will. Or are you saying that you should have that right, but she shouldn't?

The people who are dying because they are not allowed to take your bodily resources are no doubt not seeing a lot of difference. They know that they will die because you don't want to safely (mortality-wise, it is safer to be a live kidney donor than it is to give birth) give of your bodily resources. You are saying that your right to keep your extra kidney that you don't need, your right to bodily integrity, that right is greater than their lives. Yet, you are saying that the woman's right is less than the fetus' right. So are you saying that the fetus has more rights than the kidney patient?

Refusing to donate a kidney is not forcing the person who needs the kidney to die (again, the dialysis machine comes into mind). Abortion, on the other hand, is forcing the person being aborted to die. The kidney patient, the fetus, and the woman all have the same rights to live.
The kidney patient needs a kidney, no one donates one, and no other technology can save him (lets imagine that there are no dialysis machines): tough luck. Are we forcing that patient to die?
The fetus needs a womb to live in for a while, the mother does not like it, so she aborts the fetus' life. Are we forcing the fetus to die?
You decide.

Forge · Post by **Forge** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:58 pm

steen wrote:Now, are you actually going to answer the points I raised above, or are you going to continue to avoid them? So far you sure haven't addressed them yet.

I think Kroz answered perfectly.

Lycan · Post by **Lycan** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:06 pm

OK, let's try to keep this discussion civil. I know it's kinda hard considering the controversial nature of this topic. But, the rules are the rules. In particular, let's do try to follow rules 1 and 14:

1. No personal attacks of any sort are allowed.
14. In general, all members are to be civil and respectful.

My apologies Otseng.

steen · Post by **steen** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:08 pm

Lycan wrote:
Lame copout. Are you afraid of actually addressing what I am saying?
A lame copout, just because I refuse to repeat myself over and over. Riiiight....

No, because what you reply is unrelated to the point raised. Because you try to "debate" without actually dealing with and responding to the points raised by others. That is a dishonest debating style.

And that is why, when this is appealed up through the legal system, the verdict will be thrown out as unconstitutional.
Wow, all this charm and psychic too...

Yeah, and your momma dresses you funny. Are we done with the ad hominem nonsense?

Kind of like the potential life of a bleeder in exhange for 15 minutes of giving blood by you. Eh? You still refuse to be forced to give blood against your will for 15 minutes, yet debase 9 months of unwanted pregnancy?
This argument in moot in regards to me... I would not need to be forced. I would give blood or do whatever I could to help, because as I have said not everything is about me or my comfort.

But can you be forced to do so? Or are you going to keep on AVOIDING actually addressing that point? Are you going to keep on copping out?

Nope. I am saying that your being upset with my disagreement is childish, narcissistic in its claim that mere disagreement is uncivil
Point being I was never upset (am still not upset), If you reread the posts I believe the lack of civility began on your side of the fence, I return what is given to me.

And I disagree. My disagreement was not uncivil. Your hurt and angry response to me daring to disagree with you, on the other hand, was very uncivil. It is not my fault that you can't handle having your opinions and claims questioned, or having other disagree with you.

Kind of like this?:
Ah, look how cute. A "because I say so" prolife postulation that beliefs are facts. (Yes, THAT was snide.)

Yes, but justified. When you refuse to be civil enough to deal with the points I raised, instead attacking me and being snide, then you deserve getting that right back.

Kind of like this?:
So you are some kind of self-loathing masochist who likes to have your stressors and physical discomfort ignored and devalued. Who would have thought...!

That was the result of your claim. Yes, somewhat snide, per your remarks to me. Guess we were escalating. I apologize for my statement.

and this:
Nope. I am saying that your being upset with my disagreement is childish, narcissistic in its claim that mere disagreement is uncivil.

No, I stand by that one. That is a factual observation.

and this:
You are a man, aren't you? Because only a man would be so ignorant of what a pregnancy means to the woman.

A bit snide, yes. But I won't really apologize, as that is a valid point, most PL devaluing the experience of a woman during the pregnancy, almost as if what she goes through doesn't matter. It still is a demonstration of the complete disregard for the woman that PL displays.

and this:
TRANSLATION: The prolife argument is not good enough, so I won't deal with it, or how it exposes the poor idea of my original claim.

No, I stand by that one as well. that is also factual. You are still huffing and puffing and making postulations because you seem unable to actually address the point I make in my posts.

should I go on? Such the hypocrite.....

As YOU started the personal attacks, and then insult through ignoring the points raised when I showed the courtesy of dealing with your points, the hypocrite if any, must be you.

steen · Post by **steen** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:25 pm

keltzkroz wrote:
steen wrote: Just as the patient bleeding to death. Just like the patient in kidney failure. They are all persons. Yet, without somebody's bodily resources, they will die. That is especially true for those in kidney failure. There are NEVER enough donated kidneys for those who need them, and some WILL die because they don't have the right to forcibly (but safely) extract your kidney.
So merely being a person doesn't give the right to use another person's bodily resources against their will. Does the kidney patient have a "right to live" that extends to taking bodily resources without permission?
Its funny how you chose people with kidney failure as one of your examples. Trust me, I know what it feels. Last time I checked, nobody is actually forcing me to die by kidney failure (lucky for me, Im not yet dying). Abortion forces the person being aborted to die by abortion. Big difference.

Funny how you are not "moving the goal post" so to speak (BTW, that's known as being dishonest in debating styles). The question was whether merely being a "person" was sufficient to give one the "right to life" to use another person's bodily resources against that person's will.

Could you try to actually address that point, or are you also going the cop-out route?

As for other points in your post, the embryo or fetus are not persons (Roe vs. Wade, Section IX). And in either case, withholding resources needed for survival will cause the death. Preventing the fetus from using the womans bodily resources against her will is no different than preventing you from using others bodily resources against their will.

But you are saying that you cant, but the fetus can. That must mean that there is something other than the fetus as a "person" needed to allow such unwanted use.

The arguments we have seen so far all revolve around it being the womans "fault" that she is pregnant, and that this somehow forces her to give her bodily resources. This "pregnancy as punishment" idea still revolves around theocratic ideas of the woman as a sinner who didnt follow the unique moral beliefs of the theocracy/you/whomever believes that their moral beliefs are so superior that they should be legislated.

Well, that IS the rub, isn't it? You want to be able to force her to give of her bodily resources even against her will. And this is because you believe that if the fetus is a person, then it has the right to those resources regardless of the woman's willingness to give them. Now, I am waiting to see if you accept that a kidney patient can fore you to safely give up your extra kidney so that he can avoid dying?
Your being forced to give up bodily resources to a person to satisfy his/her "right to life" shouldn't be any different. Unless, of course, you have some OTHER qualifier in there about duties that you haven't mentioned yet?
I addressed this above. On one case, we have a kidney patient who needs a kidney to live , but no one wants to donate a kidney (ever heard about dialysis machines? ),

Eventually, dialysis fails.

while on the other case, we have a person who needs the mother's womb to live, but she does not want that person to use it. Please tell me in which case is a person being forced to die?

Tell me in which case a person is forced to give their bodily resources for anothers "right to life." You would be forced to die because somebody refuses to provide safely of their bodily resources so you can fulfill your "right to life." So you do NOT have enough of a "right to life" to force others to keep you alive per their bodily resources. Yet, you insist that the fetus has such a right.

She should have the right to not give those resources if she doesn't want to. After all, YOU have that right, the right to not be forced to give of your bodily resources against your will. Or are you saying that you should have that right, but she shouldn't?

The people who are dying because they are not allowed to take your bodily resources are no doubt not seeing a lot of difference. They know that they will die because you don't want to safely (mortality-wise, it is safer to be a live kidney donor than it is to give birth) give of your bodily resources. You are saying that your right to keep your extra kidney that you don't need, your right to bodily integrity, that right is greater than their lives. Yet, you are saying that the woman's right is less than the fetus' right. So are you saying that the fetus has more rights than the kidney patient?
Refusing to donate a kidney is not forcing the person who needs the kidney to die (again, the dialysis machine comes into mind).

It is actually, as the dialysis will fail at some point. All kidney patients will die unless they can get a transplant. But there arent enough, so many **WILL** die because they couldnt force others to give them a kidney.

You are saying that you do not have the right to force somebody to give you a kidney so you can survive.

Abortion, on the other hand, is forcing the person being aborted to die. The kidney patient, the fetus, and the woman all have the same rights to live.

Your claim is false. You are saying that the fetus DOES have the right to force the woman to give of her bodily resources against her will. And you are saying that the kidney patient does not have that right. Thus, the fetus "right to life" is greater than the kidney patients "right to life; so much greater that the donor can be forced in the case of the fetus, but not in the case of the kidney.

The kidney patient needs a kidney, no one donates one, and no other technology can save him (lets imagine that there are no dialysis machines): tough luck. Are we forcing that patient to die?

We are saying that the Kidney patient cant forcibly get bodily resources from an unwilling donor.

The fetus needs a womb to live in for a while, the mother does not like it, so she aborts the fetus' life. Are we forcing the fetus to die?

We are saying that the fetus can forcibly get bodily resources from an unwilling donor..

You decide.

In that case, no the fetus can not do so. Case closed.

steen · Post by **steen** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:26 pm

Forge wrote:
steen wrote:Now, are you actually going to answer the points I raised above, or are you going to continue to avoid them? So far you sure haven't addressed them yet.
I think Kroz answered perfectly.

Kroz didn't, so I must conclude that you insist on continue to avoid dealing with the points I raised. So you are still copping out.