| On abortion and why the pro-life stance does not belong in a political discussion |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 04.09.04 (2:17 pm) Well, it's debateable that a fetus isn't alive or not. It depends on what our definition of "alive" is. Is someone who is brain-dead and on life support no longer really alive? Pro-lifers also consider the legal aspects and not just the moral ones. I think both sides look at both morality and legality. They just have varying perspectives. It is against the law to kill someone that has already been born, in less it is in self-defense. Pro-choicers think it is not immoral to have an abortion because they do not feel that the "thing" inside the woman is alive. IMHO, abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. It is the woman's own fault if she was careless in using protection. It isn't the baby's fault. However, there are special circumstances that arise where abortion is necissary. The law should allow for these circumstances. As a woman, I could not fathom taking something that is a live human being from inside of me and removing it, before it is ready. Am I going to go bomb a clinic? No. That's worse. And, like I said, there are some times that an abortion is necissary. However, if I ever become pregnant, I shall see it through. I think just about every legistlation is enacted and based upon moral views. That's how society operates. Morality is just another euphamism for "logically correct" or "the right thing to do." Is a law (when enstated correctly) "logically correct" or "the right thing to do"? Otherwise, why would someone ever create it, in less they felt is was right? posted by: lynne (reply) post date: 04.09.04 (2:28 pm) First, I want to say that I am very pro-choice. But, I have to disagree with you that imposing morality is not a function of government. For instance, I do not have a problem with murder being illegal even though in some cases, what is murder is a matter of moral interpretation. But, I do think that moral issues without a very obvious harm to another person should not be legislated. And if one does not consider a fetus to yet be a person as I dont, then the logic holds strong there. I also think that abortion should be legal because I believe that it is immoral to force someone to do something with their body that they dont want to do even if there is a situation where if they dont do something a death occurs. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 04.09.04 (5:15 pm) The reason murder is illegal is because it violates individual rights, not merely because it is immoral. The morality or immorality of an action is not cause for the government to ban or allow it. A fetus is alive, and it is human, but it is not independent life, and it is not a person. It is legal is most states for you to use lethal force on someone that is on your property and refuses to leave. So why shouldn't the same privilege be extended to someone that is inside your body? No one has the right to force you to be a life support system for someone else. Whether you chose to be or not is personal preference. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 04.09.04 (5:51 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 Where do we set the standards for individual rights from? Some say that they can morally kill someone because they dislike them and they think that society thinks that the killer (let's call him that for differentiational perposes) has the full right, while the killee has no rights. It's all a matter of moral interperatation. Murder is against the law in the U.S. because the majority of people here feel it is immoral and, therefore, wrong. But in Saudi Arabia, it's all good. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 04.09.04 (5:55 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 Also (I had another thought here). how can a fetus be a human, yet not a person? And there are lots of humans who are not independant lifeforms. Can we kill them and not be in trouble? And if that 5 yr old child is on your property and refuses to leave, are you going to shoot them? Are you allowed to shoot them, especially if you created them? I would think that the unborn child is on a form of life support, because they are not an independant life form. Does the mother have the right to pull the plug, even if the child wasn't allowed to voice personal prefference? posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 04.09.04 (6:25 pm) Reply to: RedTigress There are several different formulations of individual rights, the most notable early one by John Locke. Jefferson and the other founding fathers did not want our government to protect life liberty and the pursuit of happiness because most people thought it was immoral otherwise, but because they thought that all people were equally endowed with those rights. I didn't say a fetus is a human, I said it is human. A human hair is human, but not a person. The fetus is still biologically a part of the mother while it is in the womb. The 5 year old can be escorted off the property using force. Obviously deadly force is not necessary. Yes, the unborn fetus is on life-support. The difference is that the life-support system is another human being. You are not required to build a life-support system or to pay for one for another person, and you can't be required to act as one yourself. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 04.09.04 (7:43 pm) Reply to: RedTigress Here is a link to a good explanation of my views on individual rights. http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 04.10.04 (8:19 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 And I guess that's where we get into the subject about morality. I think that the mother is morally responsible to not terminate that person's life-support. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 04.10.04 (8:28 pm) Reply to: RedTigress I too couldn't fathom having an abortion if I got pregnant, and I guess I mostly consider it immoral. But the bottom line is, my opinion shouldn't be imposed on any other woman in that situation. The government shouldn't intervene in private matters such as this and morality shouldn't be forced, especially by the legal system. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 04.10.04 (9:05 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 I respectfully disagree. posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 04.14.04 (4:54 pm) This is a very slippery slope. I agree that morality should not be imposed ~ primarily because morality is subjective (your morality may not be mine). However, Lynn is correct when she says that banning murder is imposing morality and yet none of us (hopefully) have a problem with that. I think most people would agree (or not) that an individual's right to pursue contentment and success should be limited only when that pursuit infringes on another individual's to do the same thing. And that's where things get sticky... and why the question of life cannot be taken out of the equation. For me, the debate is not whether or not a fetus is a life ~ I cannot deny the evidence suggesting that it is. However, for me the question is one of choosing which life should be given more credence. In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to make a distinction... but we do not live in a perfect world. And in our world, I feel a woman ought to have a right to make that choice for herself. And if that choice results in eternal damnation, then that is between her and her deity of choice. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 04.15.04 (4:27 pm) Reply to: juniperflux Well, as you said (more or less), individual freedom is generally agreed to be restricted only to things that do not infringe upon the rights of others. Murder is illegal because it violates the rights of the victim, not because it is immoral, though most would certainly agree that it is also immoral to kill someone. It is a bit tricky because it can be argued that a fetus is a person, thus endowed with the same rights as the mother, but a fetus isn't born, meaning it isn't alive, meaning it is wrong to say that abortion is murder. The moral question certainly is valid, but not in the realm of political decision-making. |
|