We exist, FYI. Some of us are even pro-life.

ND HB 1572 FTW!!!

Views: 1538

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I get that you are trying to make us see abortion perhaps in this way.

Maybe I am wrong in the way I view things, but I do not view a woman being raped the same as an embryo or early fetus being aborted. The reason is that I view a woman as a fully conscious person capable of suffering and I view an unborn child as potential for a life rather than a being who can suffer or feel the loss of a (essentially meaningless) life not lead.
Would I abort probably not for the selfish reason that I could not cope with the uncertainty of this decision and the wondering about this life. But on the other hand I am fairly certain I have had an early (like 2 weeks) natural miscarriage and it does not keep me up late at night. There is so much uncertainty surrounding this issue so do we go with what we can see clearly a woman who has valid reasons for not wanting to carry, give birth to, or care for a baby or for the uncertainty about whether the unborn child minds not having a shot at life. Personally I'd have the baby, but if I was advising a young rape victim, say for instances I would suggest an abortion.

So I am pro-choice and I do not shirk from giving that choice directly to the women as she is the person most clearly and tangibly affected by this choice. As a mother of 2, I know this only too well and I would not put anyone through motherhood for the sake of the intangible, unknown embryo if she could not cope with it or did not want it.
I could commit a murder in a completely painless way, and you would not be alive afterwards to suffer the loss of your life. I could rape you in a coma. Moral atrocities can be committed painlessly; pain is irrelevant in the question of ethics,
Why does it matter if you harm me in a painless way?
- Because my death would be felt as a loss to my family and given a choice I would not want to die and leave things I've started unfinished esp. leaving my kids. But I would not know any different I'd be gone.
- Rape matters if I become impregnated or if I find out and feel violated because of the emotional responses I have built up over time.

I do not think that a painless death to a being that will not feel the loss of its life or who will not be missed is an atrocity. Pain is relevant because if the being feels no pain it is not harmed. Now does it feel loss? Is it bothered that it missed out on life, are the sperm that are wasted feeling pain or loss?
So a hermit is less of a person than others?
Your point is they won't be missed so why not kill them. They have been living and thinking and choosing and so they should be allowed to go on this way. Their living does not impact upon any one person in so large a way as a women carrying a baby and giving birth. So there is no reason to kill them.
The issue comes down to choice with a women and her body against a potential baby.
Is it more wrong to take life or to abuse a living being. To force a women to be pregnant and give birth against her will is abuse in my opinion. How can a women be forced to carry a child to term if she does not want it?
I chose both my pregnancies and they were tough, pregnancy sickness all day everyday for 9 weeks, then child birth - a day and a half of labour. Then caring for a young infant. I did it by choice and adore my kids, but to do that by force would be traumatic and outrageous, all because of a possibility that the bunch of cells might mind being killed.
A jury does not have the medical background to decide the safety of a procedure for another person. That decision remains to be that of the woman and her doctor.
Under your logic, if the woman were to die in that 2% chance, the jury should then be held accountable for HER death after forcing her to go through with the pregnancy against her will. Funny thing about accountability. It works both ways.
In reminder of your attempt at emotional sway instead of logical argument, I'd ask you to look back on the fifth page where you made the analogy of a living person being pushed out of a plane through a meat grinder.
I'm not saying you don't have a right to your opinion. I'm saying that you do not have a right to legislate the safety of any woman. The only person who can make that call is her own self and her doctor.
Besides the immediate medical risks, there are also delayed reactions to take into consideration such as various forms of depression, domestic violence and family abuse from an unintended pregnancy. No jury can weigh all those variables, a doctor can only weigh some. In the end, it is the woman that has the knowledge and accountability.
All pregnancies carry risks. You are not allowed to decide for another person if they should take that risk or not.
The medical professional would, of course, testify in front of the jury, just as a professional would present forensic evidence to a non-expert jury.

If the jury must be held guilty for a woman who dies from a 2% chance, they must also be held responsible for the death of the child if the woman would've survived.

As for the emotional appeal, that was just an analogy. Abortion intends the death of the fetus; it is not simply "removal".
To say that it is death implies that there is life to begin with.
This argument doesn't stand for any of us that aren't buying your perspective of 'immediate personhood' (such as the medical community)
You aren't backing up these arguments with anything scientific at all. Just because you want it to be so doesn't mean that it is.
If you were to come across an embryo just sitting around (um.. as they usually do?) outside of a womb, would you even know what it was? Could you recognize it as anything human? Even if I were to use medical science to help you by giving you a microscope, would even know what you were looking at?
So something that cannot even be seen by the human eye, or identified by a non-medical trained brain carries just as much (if not more) weight as a free-thinking woman who has the ability to decide whether or not she is willing and able to carry it to full term, deliver it and then make a decision regarding it's life? How would you trust a woman to care for a child she's been forced to have, anyway? Or instead would you further infringe upon her rights by insisting upon adoption? "hmm... since abortion is illegal, you can't seek one out, but you don't seem very enthused about this pregnancy so we are going to take the resulting baby from you!"
Great idea! No wonder everyone is jumping on board with you!
There is life. A tree is life. A fungus is life. A tree can die. The presence of LIFE is inconsequential.

Also, rights are not determined by appearance.
Your argument seems to come down to your belief that all life is valuable. That the life of an unborn child is just as valuable as that of a women.

If it is a choice between the life of either because of a medical issue and only about survival then I go with the mother because of the hurt and harm her death can cause to so many others.

If her life is not in danger physically, but it is a case of emotional health and /or a radical change of circumstances to her life it becomes blurry, how much can we as a society ask a women to sacrifice to save the life of an unborn child. Her life is valuable and it is affected by carrying a child to term and giving birth. Even if she gives her child away it would be very difficult for all involved.

We still must compare the quality of life for the mother and those involved, with the loss of an unborn child's opportunity for life. This I suppose is where we part company because I value the mother's existing life and circumstances higher, particularly as there are so many cases where a child born would be very distressing for not just the mother but a chain of others.

I am asking myself these questions:
Is simply being alive a valuable thing?
If it is our brains that give us meaning is there any loss if we have not yet developed thoughts? And when do we begin to do this in a way that might experience loss?
Should we ensure survival at all cost? If so why do we let African children die?

If I could answer these I might have a better answer for the abortion debate. I am still thinking about this issue.
Infants have not yet developed thoughts; they don't even become self-aware until 15 months.

One person's happiness does not outweigh another person's life. You can't kill someone to make yourself happier.

I'm not discussing ensuring survival; I'm talking about not insuring death. Miscarriages happen. There's a difference between being killed and just dieing.
We kill people to make ourselves happier every single day, just by choosing to have when others have not.
But to developed thoughts; a 15 month old or even a newborn has already been born and we would not advocate killing them because at this point they can be given to someone else to raise. The mother has already gone through the trauma of pregnancy and birth.
Before this or let's say before they can survive outside the womb is another story and I would ask the question can you kill something that has no thoughts. Why not? I really want a clear idea why you think killing something is bad. I am not being cold, I of course have emotional reasons myself to feel this sounds bad, but why is it bad?
Why shouldn't the happiness of one person who is living and already linked to the emotions of others be more important than a bunch of cells with potential for life, a potential human that crucially will not have a physical, or emotional response to the situation at all?
Is it that LIFE is so valuable in your view? If so why? What is so special about living?

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service