The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby RaharuAharu » Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:21 pm

I would expect more killings in the future as it would seem that they work.

urbs#4 urbs#1 urbs#2


http://apnews.myway.com//article/200906 ... 8SQ80.html

Slain Kansas abortion provider's clinic to close

Jun 9, 12:31 PM (ET)

By ROXANA HEGEMAN

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) - The family of slain abortion provider George Tiller said Tuesday that his Wichita clinic will be "permanently closed," effective immediately.

In a statement released by Tiller's attorneys, his family said it is ceasing operation of Women's Health Care Services Inc. and any involvement by family members in any other similar clinic.

"We are proud of the service and courage shown by our husband and father and know that women's health care needs have been met because of his dedication and service," the family said.

Tiller was shot to death May 31 while serving as an usher at the Lutheran church in Wichita that he regularly attended. Scott Roeder is being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in Tiller's death.

Tiller's family said it will honor his memory through private charitable activities.

Family members said they wanted to assure Tiller's previous patients that the privacy of their medical histories and patient records will remain "as fiercely protected now and in the future" as they were during Tiller's lifetime.
Hello! *~( ! !)>
Alien Parachronism
Image
User avatar
RaharuAharu
1000 Post Forum Master!

  Offline
 
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:09 am

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby Wizard CaT » Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:50 pm

Honestly if it was more of a one man operation, it would be expected that it would close when he died, natural or otherwise.
~Only in silence the word, only in dark the light, only in dying life: bright the hawk's flight on the empty sky.~ The Creation of Éa
Damn you Clemson University, you deleted the 'sploding Kay that Etherwings uploaded eons ago!
User avatar
Wizard CaT
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Earth

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby Coda » Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:08 pm

It was a small "family-run" operation; there are plenty of other clinics here in town that will perform an abortion within the bounds of the law. So yeah, there's no place a woman who's 8 months pregnant can go get an abortion anymore, but according to the statutes there never should have been.
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby RaharuAharu » Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:39 pm

This has always been my position on abortions.

Image

Personal choice. Do not attempt to legislate your morality on someone else.
Hello! *~( ! !)>
Alien Parachronism
Image
User avatar
RaharuAharu
1000 Post Forum Master!

  Offline
 
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:09 am

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby Wizard CaT » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:31 pm

RaharuAharu wrote:This has always been my position on abortions.

Personal choice. Do not attempt to legislate your morality on someone else.


Ok, I'm just saying it's not like the family is going to start performing them, and if a doctor wanted to perform 8th month they aren't going to move to that clinic just to do them.
~Only in silence the word, only in dark the light, only in dying life: bright the hawk's flight on the empty sky.~ The Creation of Éa
Damn you Clemson University, you deleted the 'sploding Kay that Etherwings uploaded eons ago!
User avatar
Wizard CaT
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Earth

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby RaharuAharu » Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:46 pm

Wizard CaT wrote:
Ok, I'm just saying it's not like the family is going to start performing them, and if a doctor wanted to perform 8th month they aren't going to move to that clinic just to do them.


Good point, true true.
Hello! *~( ! !)>
Alien Parachronism
Image
User avatar
RaharuAharu
1000 Post Forum Master!

  Offline
 
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:09 am

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby Coda » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:23 am

I will respectfully disagree with Raharu's statement.

The reason abortion is such a big mess is that it hangs on the very idea of the personhood of what is, biologically, a human being. By accepting abortion, you are arguing one of two viewpoints: (1) the fetus is not a person, or (2) it is acceptable to forcibly end the life of another, innocent, person.

You can't just say "if you don't like abortion, don't have one," any more than you can say "if you don't like euthanasia, don't do it," or "if you don't like the death penalty, don't do it," or "if you don't like murder, don't do it." I'm not saying that these four actions are semantically, morally, or ethically equivalent, but they do share a commonality: If you believe that any of these things is wrong, it is insufficient to simply restrict your own actions. If you believe it is wrong, ethically you MUST oppose it -- you MUST believe in the rights of victims unable to defend themselves. If you don't do so, at least at some level (even if your only action is a personal resolution to be opposed to it), your belief is meaningless. Any belief you hold that you are not willing to act upon is meaningless.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm strongly anti-abortion in my morals, but in the interests of being realistic I can accept small compromises -- permitting early-term abortions in the case of rape or when the pregnancy would endanger the lives of both mother and child. Abortions of convenience I find utterly abominable. That said, do take note that I'm not arguing the anti-abortion agenda with this post, simply that making such a simple, blanket statement fails to take the facts of the issue into account.
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby Monocheres » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:40 am

Coda, that was very soundly reasoned. I hope everyone can at least acknowledge that, regardless of their position on this issue.
---
(formerly known as Synetos Protos ... but Monocheres was an even cooler character)
User avatar
Monocheres
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Penny Delta, Kingdom of the Moirolatres

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby RaharuAharu » Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:59 am

Coda wrote:I will respectfully disagree with Raharu's statement.

The reason abortion is such a big mess is that it hangs on the very idea of the personhood of what is, biologically, a human being. By accepting abortion, you are arguing one of two viewpoints: (1) the fetus is not a person, or (2) it is acceptable to forcibly end the life of another, innocent, person.

You can't just say "if you don't like abortion, don't have one," any more than you can say "if you don't like euthanasia, don't do it," or "if you don't like the death penalty, don't do it," or "if you don't like murder, don't do it." I'm not saying that these four actions are semantically, morally, or ethically equivalent, but they do share a commonality: If you believe that any of these things is wrong, it is insufficient to simply restrict your own actions. If you believe it is wrong, ethically you MUST oppose it -- you MUST believe in the rights of victims unable to defend themselves. If you don't do so, at least at some level (even if your only action is a personal resolution to be opposed to it), your belief is meaningless. Any belief you hold that you are not willing to act upon is meaningless.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm strongly anti-abortion in my morals, but in the interests of being realistic I can accept small compromises -- permitting early-term abortions in the case of rape or when the pregnancy would endanger the lives of both mother and child. Abortions of convenience I find utterly abominable. That said, do take note that I'm not arguing the anti-abortion agenda with this post, simply that making such a simple, blanket statement fails to take the facts of the issue into account.



I also do not like abortions, I much prefer contraceptives and adoptions.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Some people can not have kids, adoptions help.

However it is not your place to tell someone what they can do with their own body. That is a real slippery slope, and not the people will marry their pets kind, of slope.

And I do oppose it. I urge people to not have them when the issue comes up, but ultimately the choice is theirs, and not in fact, yours. They must live with their choices in this life, and if you believe there to be, the one after. That is freedom. It brings things you like, and things you do not.
Hello! *~( ! !)>
Alien Parachronism
Image
User avatar
RaharuAharu
1000 Post Forum Master!

  Offline
 
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:09 am

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby Coda » Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:05 pm

RaharuAharu wrote:However it is not your place to tell someone what they can do with their own body. That is a real slippery slope, and not the people will marry their pets kind, of slope.


And that is exactly where the debate comes in. That opinion -- that you're telling the woman what she can do with her own body -- is making the argument that the fetus is not a person. That in itself is making a judgment about the significance of the existence of the child. The fetus cannot tell you what HE wants to do with HIS body. If you accept that a fetus is a person, he is an underprivileged, handicapped individual, unable to express himself. As such, should he not deserve the same amount of protection as a retarded child or an elderly dementia sufferer? If you accept that a fetus is a person, why are HIS rights inferior to anyone else's, just because he's unable to express them for himself?

There are only two ways to resolve this conflict non-hypocritically while accepting abortion: Either you must believe that the fetus is not a person, or you must believe that it is acceptable to kill people who have committed no crime for the benefit of other people (or for their own benefit, regardless of their own opinions). The former is primarily a religious, metaphysical decision, which is why this debate as a whole can see no ultimate resolution. The latter is a slippery slope -- one that the United States, at least, has been trying very hard to avoid -- that leads to eugenics and the marginalization of the lesser-abled.

By the way, there IS no such "right." If I can choose to do what I want with my body, then I can choose to use my right hand to pull the trigger on a weapon aimed at someone. If I can choose to do what I want with my body, I can inject testosterone until I snap and pound someone to death. The slope is slippery in both directions. Order is a balance between personal liberty and social stability. Demarcations must be made as to what choices are considered acceptable and what choices are considered unacceptable in order to preserve society.
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby RaharuAharu » Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:42 pm

Coda wrote:
RaharuAharu wrote:However it is not your place to tell someone what they can do with their own body. That is a real slippery slope, and not the people will marry their pets kind, of slope.


And that is exactly where the debate comes in. That opinion -- that you're telling the woman what she can do with her own body -- is making the argument that the fetus is not a person. That in itself is making a judgment about the significance of the existence of the child. The fetus cannot tell you what HE wants to do with HIS body. If you accept that a fetus is a person, he is an underprivileged, handicapped individual, unable to express himself. As such, should he not deserve the same amount of protection as a retarded child or an elderly dementia sufferer? If you accept that a fetus is a person, why are HIS rights inferior to anyone else's, just because he's unable to express them for himself?

There are only two ways to resolve this conflict non-hypocritically while accepting abortion: Either you must believe that the fetus is not a person, or you must believe that it is acceptable to kill people who have committed no crime for the benefit of other people (or for their own benefit, regardless of their own opinions). The former is primarily a religious, metaphysical decision, which is why this debate as a whole can see no ultimate resolution. The latter is a slippery slope -- one that the United States, at least, has been trying very hard to avoid -- that leads to eugenics and the marginalization of the lesser-abled.

By the way, there IS no such "right." If I can choose to do what I want with my body, then I can choose to use my right hand to pull the trigger on a weapon aimed at someone. If I can choose to do what I want with my body, I can inject testosterone until I snap and pound someone to death. The slope is slippery in both directions. Order is a balance between personal liberty and social stability. Demarcations must be made as to what choices are considered acceptable and what choices are considered unacceptable in order to preserve society.


Your later arguments are asinine at best.

Pulling the trigger and shooting someone is clearly acting to harm another, fully sentient person, who can express his displeasure at being shot.

Testosterone has known negative side effects, and overdosing your self on it, then hurting someone is the same as going out for a night of drinking, and then killing someone with your car. This is one of the reasons it is a controlled substance.

But back to the real issue.

No, I personally do not believe that a fetus is a person, it is wholly dependent on its host, and before you
go off saying that I think babies are parasites, they are more akin to symbiotes. Reproductive freedom is possibly the greatest benefit to humanity in the last 100 years.

Do I think later term abortions are bad... yes I do actually, at that point the fetus could possibly survive on its own outside of its host.

Demarcations must be made as to what choices are considered acceptable and what choices are considered unacceptable in order to preserve society.


This I agree with actually to a point.

Perhaps some middle ground is in order.

Perhaps if we set a line up to what point an abortion may be preformed.

What period during a pregnancy, is the fetus able to survive away from its mother.
Lets set the line there. After that point, the child must be carried to term and after
the mother in question must either give up the child to the state or another party, or
raise the child as her own.

Prior to that point, she may freely decide to abort the pregnancy,
but Prior a certified physician must perform an ultrasound to determine how far along the pregnancy is.


Would this be something that we could agree on?
Hello! *~( ! !)>
Alien Parachronism
Image
User avatar
RaharuAharu
1000 Post Forum Master!

  Offline
 
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:09 am

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby Coda » Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:44 pm

Asinine? No, I INTENDED those arguments to seem like absurd comparisons, specifically so I could deconstruct them.

Pulling the trigger and shooting someone is clearly acting to harm another, fully sentient person, who can express his displeasure at being shot.

What if you shoot someone in his sleep? They can't express their displeasure. What if you shoot a retarded kid? They may not even understand the concept of death. And as far as "clearly acting to harm another," that goes right back to acting to harm the fetus, so you can't make that a distinction, unless you don't believe a fetus is a person.

Testosterone has known negative side effects, and overdosing your self on it, then hurting someone is the same as going out for a night of drinking, and then killing someone with your car. This is one of the reasons it is a controlled substance.

Yes, but the "it's my body and I can do what I want to it" argument is the primary one raised by those seeking to legalize drug use. The concept of "controlled substances" is contrary to personal liberty -- it's saying that the government knows better than you do in regards to what you're allowed to consume.

There are a number of thresholds that have been discussed (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment for a discussion of when a fetus might be called a "person").

As far as surviving away from the mother is concerned, that's not a particularly good test; you could argue a three-month-old infant can't survive away from her mother. Heck, you could argue that until five or six years old, depending on the child. On the flip side, if you'll consider living in an incubator with a feeding tube and medical attention "surviving away from the mother," then that could be three months or possibly even earlier.

Given the two explicit exceptions I said I'd be willing to compromise on for the sake of reason (as opposed to purely my moral perspective), I would find an appropriate timeline to be one based on due diligence. That is to say, if the mother responds in a timely manner to the discovery that she has become pregnant due to rape, or after a reasonable amount of consideration and counseling upon discovery that the pregnancy is life-threatening, then an abortion could be permitted. If the pregnancy continues after this time due to negligence, or if a compelling reason to allow the abortion is not found, it will be denied.

If it would receive serious consideration from lawmakers I would be willing to remove the "due to rape" clause and allow it to take place within due diligence of the onset of pregnancy. I don't LIKE that idea, but if that's what it takes to make steps in the right direction, I can accept that.
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby Tychomonger » Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:04 pm

I'm kinda arguing against a point that no one here has made, but...

Considering a fetus to not be an individual need not be only a materialistic view. Consider how closely linked a mother and unborn child are, they share everything. Why wouldn't a soul be shared between the two of them? And from that viewpoint, if you stop the birthing process, you have not ended a life, you have only prevented the budding of a new one.

Just trying to mix up the language to clarify the viewpoint, I guess.
Hello!
Aealacreatrananda wrote:When I envision a far far future.... I don't fuck around.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff.
--The Doctor
User avatar
Tychomonger
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 7:13 pm
Location: Beside myself

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby Kosmonauta » Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:26 pm

As I was born with a (minor) birth defect, genetically caused, that has not, by any means, made me any less able to live same as a person without any such problems, I must also bring a bit to the side of the anti-abortion here.

In the United Kingdom, a law was considered to include my specific genetic characteristic to the lines in which abortion would be legal. It is, precisely, in hands with the argument presented here by coda. It's nothing but eugenics, and it would open precedents to include not being blonde, and not having blue eyes to the list. Sure, unlike a baby without this genetic characteristic the parents would have to deal with a reasonable amount of expenses on surgery (I am, in fact, heading to Brazil to do one last one in a couple weeks) but there is also public health support to it. It is not a incredibly rare condition, it is not something that will change your abilities forever, and even if it were, how acceptable would it be to not let a kid be born because of it?
Would you accept if people included the gay "genetic condition" (whatever that means) to be included as options to legal abortion? 'Cause there was a scientist proposing that in the U.K. too. If you don't, then you must stop and analyse what would be, for you, the limits for an abortion no matter how early.

I won't say I support an absolute ban on abortion. I do believe that the mother's life holds more weight than the baby's when the pregnancy becomes risky (although some mother's will chose to carry on, I completely sympathize with those who don't). I have sympathy for women that become pregnant from rape (although I would probably advise adoption instead of abortion if asked) and so on. But it's hard for me to endorse arguments such as "you can do whatever you want with your body" on this issue. Sexuality, sure, go on. Piercing, body modification etc etc, please do. But this does involve another life. It's a little bit more complex.
Kosmonauta
Aw, they grow up so fast!

  Offline
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 4:39 pm

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby Coda » Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:03 pm

If you want to bring up anecdotes... My mother nearly died in pregnancy with my sister. Even under my own compromise my sister could have been aborted to save my mother's life. Now my mother is nearly 50 years old and my kid sister is making plans to start her own family. So I have a personal reason to be vehemently against abortion in all cases -- but I know that's a fight I can't win.
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby Wizard CaT » Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:13 pm

An acorn is no more a tree then a fetus is a person.

If a seed blows through a screen door and takes root in a house, does it have the right to grow into a tree inside of the house?

As to "survive away from the mother" that line isn't a hard line. It moves up every day until we invent uterine receptors.

The main issue is you all seem to think human life as worth something, when it is not.
~Only in silence the word, only in dark the light, only in dying life: bright the hawk's flight on the empty sky.~ The Creation of Éa
Damn you Clemson University, you deleted the 'sploding Kay that Etherwings uploaded eons ago!
User avatar
Wizard CaT
Watermelon Graduate

  Offline
 
Posts: 904
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Earth

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby RaharuAharu » Thu Jun 11, 2009 1:19 am

Coda wrote:Asinine? No, I INTENDED those arguments to seem like absurd comparisons, specifically so I could deconstruct them.

Pulling the trigger and shooting someone is clearly acting to harm another, fully sentient person, who can express his displeasure at being shot.

What if you shoot someone in his sleep? They can't express their displeasure. What if you shoot a retarded kid? They may not even understand the concept of death. And as far as "clearly acting to harm another," that goes right back to acting to harm the fetus, so you can't make that a distinction, unless you don't believe a fetus is a person.

Testosterone has known negative side effects, and overdosing your self on it, then hurting someone is the same as going out for a night of drinking, and then killing someone with your car. This is one of the reasons it is a controlled substance.

Yes, but the "it's my body and I can do what I want to it" argument is the primary one raised by those seeking to legalize drug use. The concept of "controlled substances" is contrary to personal liberty -- it's saying that the government knows better than you do in regards to what you're allowed to consume.

There are a number of thresholds that have been discussed (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment for a discussion of when a fetus might be called a "person").

As far as surviving away from the mother is concerned, that's not a particularly good test; you could argue a three-month-old infant can't survive away from her mother. Heck, you could argue that until five or six years old, depending on the child. On the flip side, if you'll consider living in an incubator with a feeding tube and medical attention "surviving away from the mother," then that could be three months or possibly even earlier.

Given the two explicit exceptions I said I'd be willing to compromise on for the sake of reason (as opposed to purely my moral perspective), I would find an appropriate timeline to be one based on due diligence. That is to say, if the mother responds in a timely manner to the discovery that she has become pregnant due to rape, or after a reasonable amount of consideration and counseling upon discovery that the pregnancy is life-threatening, then an abortion could be permitted. If the pregnancy continues after this time due to negligence, or if a compelling reason to allow the abortion is not found, it will be denied.

If it would receive serious consideration from lawmakers I would be willing to remove the "due to rape" clause and allow it to take place within due diligence of the onset of pregnancy. I don't LIKE that idea, but if that's what it takes to make steps in the right direction, I can accept that.


Im largely done with you Coda. You continue to use asinine retorts.

What if you shoot someone in his sleep? You clearly understood what I meant yet you attempt
to twist it around with the most shallow of logic.

As for the testosterone, you free to swing your arms, right up to the point there either you strike my face, or I feel that you are a active threat to my safety or the safety of another.

As for surviving away from its host mother, you obviously know I meant as its own separate being, breath on its own, take in nourishment from an outside source, breasts, or a bottle, rather then being restricted to a umbilical tube. Yes you feel compelled to toss another twisty hollow argument at me.
you could argue a three-month-old infant can't survive away from her mother. Heck, you could argue that until five or six years old, depending on the child.


Do you think I even remotely meant in that fashion or that it has any real bearing on this argument?

Its roughly 6 months to 26 weeks by the way. That it the soonest a child could survive outside of its mother after conception. Yes there is some leeway in that figure. Which is why tests such has an ultrasound need to be done prior.

If the mother decides at 4-5 months, that she simply no longer wishes to be a mother, and has for some reason, decided to not place the child up for adoption, she should be able to terminate the pregnancy as she sees fit, after the above medical checkout to ensure that she is not mistaken as to the age of the fetus or lying about its age.

Also basing a law, on any kind of metaphysical clap trap such as Ensoulment is beyond foolish and yet again another very real slippery slope that I would honestly rather not go down. There are already enough such laws.

I would find an appropriate timeline to be one based on due diligence. That is to say, if the mother responds in a timely manner to the discovery that she has become pregnant due to rape, or after a reasonable amount of consideration and counseling upon discovery that the pregnancy is life-threatening, then an abortion could be permitted. If the pregnancy continues after this time due to negligence, or if a compelling reason to allow the abortion is not found, it will be denied.


MAYBE if that statement read something more like this.

That is to say, if the mother responds in a timely manner to the discovery that she has become pregnant , due to just being a twit and not using birth control, because of rape, or after a reasonable amount of consideration OR counseling, OR upon discovery that the pregnancy is life-threatening, then an abortion could be performed.


This will be my last post in this thread that is a direct reply to you Coda. No hard feelings. I simply do not see either of us convincing the other of their point of view.


P.S. As an afterthought, Why would you allow an abortion after rape, according to you its just as much a living soul filled being deserving of birth as any other egg sperm combo.
Hello! *~( ! !)>
Alien Parachronism
Image
User avatar
RaharuAharu
1000 Post Forum Master!

  Offline
 
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:09 am

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby Coda » Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:29 am

Hey, I'm not in this argument to win. I'm just having a discussion for the sake of discussion.

My "asinine retorts" are intentionally over the top. Please don't think I'm trying to put them forward seriously; they are specifically nitpicks on points of distinction, purely for the purpose of evoking clarification and solidification. If it's going to interfere with the conversation, I'll withdraw them; they don't play into any significant point I'm trying to make.

And yes, I do know that's what YOU meant with regards to surviving apart from the mother. I'm shooting to reduce the point to the most essential definitions, because if the distinction was made with the simple blanket statement as it was made, it could enable such obvious miscarriages of intent.

I wasn't bringing up ensoulment as a basis of law; I wasn't even bringing it up as my own viewpoint. I was bringing up some relevant beliefs that other parties hold just for documentation and reference. I fully agree that some metaphysical consideration such as that has no business being law in itself, but it could be that the public consensus on what point in development is considered "acceptable" could be affected based on such thoughts.

You're right that we're not likely to convince each other of our viewpoints. The fact of the matter is that we disagree on a core metaphysical definition, and as such are reasoning from different axioms, and will therefore necessarily reach different conclusions without being self-contradictory. As you can see from our proposed requirements, it's obvious that I believe that abortion should be prohibited unless specific conditions are met; meanwhile, you believe that it should be acceptable unless specific conditions are met -- a "default-deny" versus "default-allow" difference. We'll never reach agreement here, but I didn't expect to; I always saw the point of this discussion to find at what level a reasonable compromise might be made.

To answer your postscript, it's simply because rape is a hot issue and the woman hasn't been negligent. Accepting abortion in this case is a practical compromise, not my core belief -- I know anything that I would put forward that DOESN'T account for rape will NEVER see serious consideration, so as a matter of being realistic I can accept such a concession.
User avatar
Coda
Magickal Melon 666

  Offline
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: Holy crap, Coda set an avatar

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby Jennifer Diane Reitz » Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:17 pm

A fertilized egg is not a chicken.

A fetus is not a human being.

The real issue in abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with the sanctity of life.

It is purely about the control of the sexuality and personal power of women.
Jennifer Diane Reitz
'Giniko-chan'
Image
User avatar
Jennifer Diane Reitz
Creatrix

  Offline
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:25 am
Location: Olympia, Washington

Re: The Domestic Terrorists have won.

Postby Kosmonauta » Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:59 pm

My intention citing my own position was not to say "I would not be born", specially because from what I was told, my mom was the only one that showed no actual concerns when learned of my condition. But to state that there is an actual movement in parts of the world to grant the right of eugenics, just as you quoted, that I know of and pay attention to because it has to do with my own personal life. Despite the concerns of women freedom to their own sexuality and body, it bothers me that such freedom could include eugenics. For me that does have an equivalence to saying "black people have rights, sure, but keep them in their own neighborhood, going to black schools and using black bathrooms". And yes, I believe that allowing people to abort pregnancies because of genetic characteristics understood as handicaps that do not, by any means, keep someone from living regularly, that does seems to me like it will bring the ability to abort babies who, as I said, do not have blue eyes.

I suppose my concern can be compared to the people that complain about plastic surgery being used to change ethnic characteristics (white supremacists and minority defenders agreeing on this one for once, thou for absolutely opposed reasons). As in, despite the possibility being there, no one is obligating you to do it. But it does bother me greatly to give this option, and although I do not even joking propose plastic surgery to be controlled or banished, I do seem a great difference between the two situations. Reminds me of the movie Gattaca.
Kosmonauta
Aw, they grow up so fast!

  Offline
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 4:39 pm

Next

Return to The Political Arena

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron