Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
stinky
climber
Guymon OK
|
|
Then why is South Dakota outlawing abortion? There's your conflict.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Inalienable rights
Yes very good healyje
|
|
stinky
climber
Guymon OK
|
|
To pull a Rumsfeld and answer my own question; Because they believe that the fetus's "inalienable" right to life trumps the woman's right to privacy.
I do not agree with their position. But to deny them their position and beliefs is something that I do not have the power to do. If you deny the rationality of your foe, there is no point in reasoning with them.
|
|
Apocalypsenow
Trad climber
Cali
|
|
Inalienable rights certainly are the issue here. The question is: when do they begin, for the unborn girl who's mother is choosing not to give her those rights?
and I do mean that as a question...I don't have the answer
Have a good evening all.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Apocalypsenow - again, you can play scenario all you want. In this one no, intent is not an abortion and neither is a miscarriage. In the case of a miscarriaged into a "birth" a physician would have an obligation to both mother and child - though I suspect most physicians, until quite recently in modern hosptital settings, would have typically tended to a mother and neglected the child in such cirumstances. When a child exists in this world apart from a woman's body you can recognize rights - prior to that you infringe on a woman's rights.
If you carry this unnatural imposition of protection on a fetus why stop there? By that logic an egg and a sperm are both "alive". A sperm is swimming on it's own volition and eggs are available to all comers - viable no - alive yes. Both sperm and egg cells are alive by any definition of the term. Why not protect a woman's eggs or a man's sperm. Who are you to decide whether not have sex when an egg is fertile? Who are you to waste sperm masturbating? That fertilization is necessary for a viable fetus is simply another milestone along the road of "life" as is estrus, egg implant, or birth. For that matter, what about the days when an egg is fertilized but not implanted? What about those fertilized eggs that fail to implant? Maybe "life" ought to be defined not at fertilization when the egg is still adrift but when a fertilized egg implants because if it doesn't, well, there's another lost soul.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Because they believe that the fetus's "inalienable" right to life trumps the woman's right to privacy.
Is this it in a nutshell which defends anti-abortion?
|
|
stinky
climber
Guymon OK
|
|
Apocalypsenow
That is exactly where I am. I do not know when the fetus's inalienable rights begin. I do know that a woman carries what definitely has the potential to be life inside of her for 9 months. In my mind, her right to control her own body clearly wins over the claims made on behalf of something that may or may not have standing to bring said claims.
edit: WB-As I understand it, that is the antiabortion position in a nutshell.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
The "inalienable" issue in this regard is that no aspect of an internal reproductive process infringes on a woman's inalienable rights of freedom and privacy. After birth a child is extended those same rights - until that time the fetus is a part of the woman's reproductive system (read 'body'). A fetus is wholly dependent on a woman's body for viability or life and as such has no "inalienable" rights of its own. Those rights begin at birth once a child is separated from a woman's body.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
So you are saying the fetus in the womans body has no rights during the 9 months except for what the mother is giving?
Edit; Yes very good, Rajmit
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Werner, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying and Roger your logic is going from twisted to saddly perverse. You misunderstand completely even the notion of a "right". A "right" is not a guarantee. Depriving someone of the right to exercise a right in no way deprives them of that right. In case you didn't learn it in school yet, those "inalienable" rights are the foundation of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
From wikipedia:
"It has been argued that the idea of inalienable rights is derived from the freeborn rights claimed by the Englishman John Lilburne in his conflict with both the monarchy of King Charles I and the military dictatorship of the republic governed by Oliver Cromwell. Lilburne (known as Freeborn John) defined freeborn rights as being rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law."
And notice the emphasis on "born", not "fertilized" - hence the basis of recognizing those rights at birth.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Roger,
At this point your logic has both collapsed and decomposed to the point where there really isn't anything more useful to say...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
No no healyje it's good logic; "That shows almost no relevancy to whether or not the fetus is technically a person."
The soul within the mothers womb that has been aborted;
"Get out you have no right in my womb, go away" "You are not alive yet, I can get rid of you because you are not real yet or alive and you have no rights yet. It's my womb and I will do as I please".
The living soul was sent there to take a material body and you have kicked out. This soul must now find another body.
No rights according to the abortionist.
You will come to Yosemite and we will kick you out, us the stonemasters.
Will that ever work?
No, there are superior people in charge that will not allow.
|
|
stinky
climber
Guymon OK
|
|
Healyje,
Why choose birth as the moment when rights are conferred? In fact, why choose any one moment? I do not know when I became myself.
Was I myself when I was five? I think so.
When I was 3? Again, I think so.
When I was 1 1/2? Probably
When I was 6 months old? Again, probably.
When I was born? Maybe
A minute before I was born? Maybe
An hour before I was born? Maybe
Three months before I was born? Possibly
9 months before I was born Unlikely (unless I am Werner)
etc.
Not knowing when I became makes it hard for me to subscribe to the idea that in one moment, something can go from having no rights, to having the full protection conferred to a human.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
"Get out you have no right in my womb, go away" "I can get rid of you because you have no rights yet. It's my womb and I will do as I please".
Werner, that is the appropriate inalienable statement.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
I truly believe you are mislead healyje.
The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a set of human rights that are absolute, not awarded by human power, not transferable to another power, and incapable of repudiation.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
This is one of the trickiest and most polarized discussions we humans will ever face. It seems crazy that a woman shouldn't have the right to abort if she so chooses, but it gives me the willies to think how many partially formed (like 7 months) humans are sucked into oblivion every day. And as an adoptee I sure am glad I wasn't aborted.
This one don't have no clear answers, just clear mottos.
JL
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Stinky,
Once born, breathing, and capable of life independent of a woman's body a human "being" exists as opposed to a human "fetus". That separation of blood and breath is the only distinction of life independent from a woman's body and hence the distinction that has always been the operative one. Prior to that you are talking about assigning rights to a fetus that cannot exist apart from the woman.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Well Werner you're entitled to you male-dominated and parochial beliefs - as father to a daughter I will fight for her inalienable rights of freedom and privacy. No one has a right to tell her what to do with her body when it comes to reproduction - ever.
P.S. John, god forbid, otherwise this weekend I might end up still anchoring with an abortalette...
|
|
stinky
climber
Guymon OK
|
|
Yes, physiologically you are 100% correct.
My question is not physiological. It is metaphysical. Are you just a hunk of meat, or are you something more? If you are something more, when did that change occur?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
healyje
The first expansion of the God was woman, Srimati Radharani
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!