 |
| |
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Templar
I don't think the issue is inconsistent - only the people.
Either a fetus is human or it is not. If it is, then it is entitled to the full rights of any other person. Including the right not to be killed (in this case, via abortion). If it is not human, then it does not get any human rights.
It may be pragmatic to strike a balance in policy terms - but that does not affect the moral issue. You see, I have a consistent position - fetuses aren't persons and so do not have the rights of a person. Full stop. Case closed. People don't feel comfortable about abortion on demand? I don't feel comfortable allowing Christians on the bench. So what? People have a right to their religion and not to be discriminated on that account.
BTW, a "pragmatist" is a person who is blind to their own ideology. |
well a pragmatist could merely be a person who compromises. but its also possible that when two moral concerns collide that some form of compromise actually comes internally. and that is not neccessary for one to always absolutely win.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Templar
Compromise is possible in the same way moral inconsistency is possible. You can be morally inconsistent - it's called hypocricy. Likewise, one can compromise and thus enter a state of moral inconsistency - it's called expediency. But neither hypocricy nor expediency is a particulary desirable state.
What I mean on the issue of pragmatism is just this - "pragmatism" usually refers (in common talk) to getting from point A to point B. But why point B? This is an issue of value preferences - which in turn is ideological. For example, I may want to get from the status quo to a state where wealth is equally distributed. I may find many pragmatic ways to get to an equal distribution, but the value placed on an equal distribution is a second-order value judgement. |
it is neither expedience nor hypocrisy. unfortunately some ppl feel it is both undesirable for the mother to be forced to carry something insider her she does not want AND that it is undesirable to kill a child. it is easy to color the world black and white and then yell at it. it is something else to navigate it w/ wisdom and compassion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Templar
Fine - but you have committed yourself here to the position that (1) a fetus is human, but (2) the rights of the fetus must be balanced against the rights of the mother. What you probably want to say at this point is that because the woman did not consent to the sex (i.e. rape) that resulted in the fetus the right of the woman outweighs the right of the fetus. That is, choice is the determining factor as to whether the fetus's right to life outweights the womans right to her reproductive capacity.
That is a consistent position, but a weaker position than saying the right to life is absolute (in which case the argument is only about whether the fetus is human). After all, once you institute a balancing test of rights you open the possibility of expanded abortion. |
its only weakness is the person holding it does not scream as loud as the other side.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
When the father can carry the child to term in his own body, then he can demand that the fetus be transfered rather than aborted. Until then, forcing someone to carry a child to term against their will is slavery.
What makes a human being special is its consciousness. A fetus has no conscieouness and therefore is not human. It only has potential to become human, just like sperm and eggs, and in the age of cloning, stem cells (including adult stem cells). Granted, left alone, it is much more likely to become human (though it is not guaranteed). Nonetheless, it has not yet achieved personhood. It is human tissue, not a human being.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
When the father can carry the child to term in his own body, then he can demand that the fetus be transfered rather than aborted. Until then, forcing someone to carry a child to term against their will is slavery. |
As is forcing someone (and removing choice) to pay for a child they did not want, when the other party has a choice not to support if she wishes. |
It depends. If the man has previously stated he did not want a child and took precautions so that he would not father a child (i.e., provides his own birth control), then yes, I think he should not have to support mother or child.
If, however, he was a selfish ***** who refused to wear a condom because he doesn't like the way it feels and instead relied on (or demanded) the woman to either provide protection for herself or assumed she would get an abortion, well, then, too bad. Also, if he didn't make things clear beforehand; don't be careless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
If, however, he was a selfish ***** who refused to wear a condom because he doesn't like the way it feels and instead relied on (or demanded) the woman to either provide protection for herself or assumed she would get an abortion, well, then, too bad. |
Does this mean if the woman was selfish and refused to use birth control and instead relied on the male to use condoms, and when he didn't have any went on with it anyway, that she shouldn't have the right to an abortion?
The woman has (and SHOULD have) a choice, no matter how careful or irresponsible she was, to support a child or not. The man should have the same choice (before the birth of the child.. or before the last day it is legally permissible to get an abortion, of course).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ajbera
|
 |
of the Cookieville Minimum Security Orphanarium
Apr 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
I tend to feel the fetus's viability outside the mother plays a part in determining it's 'personhood.' A 60 day old fetus cannot possibly survive independent of the mother, thus it can be terminated. A 180 day old infant can reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb given medical care, so should not be terminated. This period of time will change as technology improves. I started a thread with two ectogenesis articles that detailed artificial wombs that should be a few pages back... neat stuff.
And although I feel it could be potentially be an infringement on personal liberty to force someone to carry a fetus to term (plenty of arguments both for and against this position), I don't believe that a woman has the right to demand the death of a fetus just because it's 'hers'... if it can be removed and nurtured without her, no need to kill it.
So, I'm grudgingly pro-choice, but feel it's best done as early as possible. 2nd trimester abortions really bother me, 3rd are out unless mother is threatened/fetus is a mutie. I don't necessarily agree with the rape provision (why compound the tragedy of rape with the tragedy of abortion?), and think it's just a horrible thing even when completely justified.
In a perfect world, abortions would be freely available to all women without restriction, but nobody would ever need (or want) to get one.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-08-2003 09:44
.
Because abortion doesn't exist 
|