yguy

An example of a living, innocent human being which does not deserve such rights would be...?

The problem is that as the proponents of the right to abortion have the burden of proof, since it is they who may be advocating murder.

Under the right circumstances, I've heard they will attack and eat humans. That they don't do it routinely is of no moment if the only thing stopping them is that they didn't think of it.

If they trample one of their number in a stampede, or if one is taken by a cougar, you think they look back?

Animals cannot have rights because they can never be responsible. Male polar bears eat their own young routinely. The bear cannot be expected to behave contrary to its programming, therefore it cannot act contrary to it so as to respect the rights of other creatures. Therefore it has no rights itself, any more than a computer has rights - except they be granted by humans.

It might be that Mars is red because it's covered with roses.

There's no anything there.

Rachel

We may be advocating murder, but you are advocating a denial of the right to control ones own body.

Until murder can be proven the facts outweigh the maybes, supporting abortion remaining legal.

If you want that to change, the burden of proof is on you.

Vylo

If anyone read my posts on the earlier thread I came to the conclusion that women should control their reproductive rights so long as they were responsible. If a birth control pill fails to do its job, that is no fault of the woman, she should not have the burden of the child.

In the case were approved contraceptives were neglected, the woman acted with negligence and must carry the child. She gives up her rights by failing to act responsibly.

In order for such a law to work, we must make it so birth control pills leave some form of trace that can tell whether the pill was in use at the time of conception. We must also made these pills widely accessible, so that factors other then negligence will not prevent women from taking these pills.

Others have commented on condoms and other contraceptives, and questioned the ability to trace them. It would be difficult and unnecessary to do so. The birth control pill would become the acceptable way to prevent unwanted birth defects, you do not need other ways, though I'm sure they can't hurt, and they may assist in other areas of sexual activity (STDs).

Is it unfortunate that innocent fetuses must die in the process? In my opinion yes, I value developing humans greatly, but totally outlawing abortion does not seem to be a viable solution. I hope that perhaps there will some day be an alternative to abortion (transplanting fetuses), but until then, we must try to do the best with what we have.

dangin

I'm not really wanting to get into this anymore, but what exactly is an "Inalienable" right. What makes it inalienable, how can one, under threat invoke this right?

You can't use poetry as an argument when it has no basis in reality.

brighid

I would agree, but your point then concedes that a fetus has no right to life and the pro-life argument you put forth is about punishing a woman for her alleged lack of responsibility.


Why? What good comes from forcing a woman, who doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term? What benefit does this "punishment" have for the child that will undoubtedly be born? Is it a fair and equitable punishment to make a woman endure a pregnancy for 9 months that carries the risk of physical harm, permanent disability, and or death because she (and her partner) did not use contraceptives? Furthermore, she (and presumably her partner) are burdened for LIFE with the care of a child (who deserves a loving family with parents who actually want a child). I think that is a rather harsh and long punishment for failure to use contraceptives. Drunk drivers, rapists and child molestors get lighter sentences and do greater harm to individuals who actually have established rights.

Furthermore, what about the man? What sort of punishment should be extended to him for also not taking precautions to prevent a pregnancy he is equally responsible for?


How intrusive! A woman, after becoming pregnant must be tested to see whether or not she took oral contraceptives to determine if she was negligent? Are you aware that before abortion was legal (particularly in the 20's) any woman who was known to have a miscarriage was arrested to determine whether or not she had an illegal abortion?

Again, what about testing the man to determine if he took precautions to prevent an unwanted pregnancy?

I do agree that contraception should be widely available, actually it should be free.

There are also many women who cannot take the pill for various health reasons, or who do take the pill and it is ineffective or harmful. I had to stop taking it because of some very negative side effects from numerous different pills (including severe depression and development of fibroids.)

The sponge (recently reinstated) has a dismall history of failure (and is actually responsible for my contraceptive failure that resulted in a pregnancy.) IUD's aren't widely available and cervical caps and other female barrier methods can become ineffective with weight loss.

What sort of battery of tests would a woman have to go through to prove she was worthy of having an abortion? What if she isn't able to prove she used contraception (such as a cervical cap, etc.?) Would she need witnesses? One, two or more? How long would this legal process take? Past the point where she could legally get an abortion, or when it wasn't as safe, such as in the first trimester?

Why should the government and courts have any say in whether a woman should take contraceptives, or have a medical abortion? For punishment? Punishment for having sex?

There is no equitable way to outlaw abortion based on intent of the woman carrying the child. Intent or even negligence should not even enter the picture.

The way to lessen the amount of abortions in this country is to allow free and easy access to a wide range of contraception, teach proper and effective sexual education to boys and girls, teach EQUAL responsibility to boys and girls when it comes to actual impregnation, improve our social structure that is not supportive of families, and continue to allow legal, medical abortion. It works well in Europe and should be modelled here.

Brighid

Vylo

Definetly true, im pressed for time so thats all for now.

brighid

No worries! You mean you have a life ... come one now I will be out of town tomorrow through Monday, so I won't be able to respond myself.

B

long winded fool

So is it safer to kill an unidentified life form indiscriminately (which if you aren't sure whether it is an innocent human or not and you destroy it, this would be an indiscriminate killing of an unidentified life form,) or to prevent an innocent person from aborting their own painful biological process? The latter seems to be the logical choice given the two. Possible human death seems to outweigh definite human pain. But maybe I'm being too objective.

yguy

If the right to life, for instance, is not inalienable, it is granted by societal consensus. That being the case, all we need to do to solve the "black question" is to come to a consensus that blacks don't have the right to life. IOW, if the concept of inalienable rights is chimerical, we are all slaves of the majority, which can revoke any individuals right to life for any reason or no reason beyond the fact that they have the power to do so.

One may not be able to. An infant can't do anything to invoke it.

What are you talking about? Am I a poet and don't know it?

dangin

You made a claim that someone has an inalienable right to life. which is a very pretty turn of phrase made by some guys that I like a lot. But what were they really saying. Life, liberty, the pusuit of happiness are "inalienable", but in fact they are not. One can be killed capriciously at any moment by a bullet, cancer, or a falling piece of sky lab. One can be alienated from life at anytime. There is no such thing as an inalienable right to life. Perhaps there ought to be, but there is not.

Using what ought to be as an objective argument fails because ought is not is.