Abortion: Murder

[C1ay]

Do chickens lay eggs or chickens?

[goku]

Do chickens lay eggs or chickens?

the eggs you eat, are just that. they're unfertilized. kinda nasty, but mmm good.

[rockytriton]

I still have seen no answer to my question of whether the woman also loses her other rights, such as the right to drink and smoke. If she is harming the baby, or if she drinks/eats something that she knows is harmful to the baby, does she then lose her right to do that or does she become a criminal? If so, where will it stop? If the baby requires her to take some certain medications during pregnancy, would she be required by law to take these? The self-righteous will never stop in their struggle to prove themselves righteous by telling others what they must do.

[rockytriton]

Sorry one more thing. While the pull out method is willfull sacrifice of the sperm, thousands(?), millions(?), of sperm die naturally in the act of conception.

 

Good argument.... While abortion is willingful sacrifice of the fetus, thousands(?) of fetuses die naturally every year due to miscarriages.

[Edge]

I think the only thing we see is the difference between a natural process, I.E. defined by natural law, and an un-natural process. In this case, abortion is un-natural because it requires human thought to occur. Miscarriage (not forced miscarriage as i have pointed out before happens when a boyfriend beats his girlfriend to cause a miscarriage, or like cases) is a natural process.

 

Also we as humans are constantly fighting, natural phenomenon. We fight by finding ways to prevent sickness and disease, to prevent death due to hurricanes and tornadoes. The government steps in and mandates things in many of these cases (such as building codes, etc.)

 

To go back to an earlier post, no one has commented on this.

Flying on a plane is unnatural, a computer is unnatural too, heart or any orgarn transplants are unnatural too.

 

And your post:

But explain to me where the practical advantages of any of my suggestions is wrong. If we only had sex after marriage, then there would be a lot fewer problems. Sure you could say that, people will just start getting married and then divorced or annul their marriage after they have sex. Gut that loop-hole then. Go back to Biblical laws on marriage. Then only not only will recreational sex be gone, which has proven psychological problems as well as the physical ones of stds, unwanted pregnancy, etc, but problems of broken homes, single parents, dead-beat dads, .........................

I don't know how to address this. Sex by pleasure, you can have it as long you are willing to face the consequences of it. I guess that responsibility is what we need. Dolphins have also sex for pleasure.

 

That list goes on for a while, courts would be amazingly freed up to take care of real criminals (not to say that dead-beat dads aren't criminals, but lessor criminals than say murderers and rapists.

It would be great if everyone decided to respect, forgive and help each other. I'm not denying that, but, we all know it's a dream. There will be always people that will want to use their force on others, people that want to take advantaje of the situation, etc. The practical purposes of your plan are great, but it is a very idealistic situation, I don't see it on a near future, not even an approximate one.

[goku]

I still have seen no answer to my question of whether the woman also loses her other rights, such as the right to drink and smoke. If she is harming the baby, or if she drinks/eats something that she knows is harmful to the baby, does she then lose her right to do that or does she become a criminal? If so, where will it stop? If the baby requires her to take some certain medications during pregnancy, would she be required by law to take these? The self-righteous will never stop in their struggle to prove themselves righteous by telling others what they must do.

what is harmful to the baby?

i'm purty sure drugs (like cocaheena) are harmful, but they're illegal anyway.

[rockytriton]

um, smoking and drinking, legally, taking certian medications, you really can't think of any?

[cwes99_03]

I too meant to reply to that, thanks for reminding me. There are actually laws against women taking come medications. That's why the FDA has ruled that they can't be given, or in some cases even handled by women who may be pregnant or may become pregnant.

 

Alcohol and smoking are harmful. In some cases, women who have been determined to have mental defect have been arrested/restrained so that they could not drink/smoke. I consider women who do this while pregnant to be purposefully taking risks that could harm their baby and am open to the idea that they be prosecuted for it.

 

Every year, many women also have their children taken away by children's services (this is in the states, not sure about other countries) because they fail to take care of their basic needs and provide them with harmful substances, such as giving them cigarettes and alcohol among other things. Why then wouldn't we take away pregnant women's rights to harm their unborn in the same way?

 

Again, the answer is because women 40 years ago wanted new freedom from their role as mothers. But they didn't want this freedom without the freedom to sleep around. They didn't consider the idea that sex is a decision that requires responsibility. Instead, they threw out responsibility by allowing "murder of the unborn". It comes right back to rights of the mother to be irresponsible versus the rights of the unborn to live.

 

Makes me think back to that quote of Abe Lincoln someone else pointed out previously.

 

oh and this

It would be great if everyone decided to respect, forgive and help each other. I'm not denying that, but, we all know it's a dream.

It is only a dream, until the courts make it a reality. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream.

[C1ay]

the eggs you eat, are just that. they're unfertilized. kinda nasty, but mmm good.

I'll rephrase, do chickens lay anything that resembles a chicken?

[rockytriton]

cwes99_03, I understand your reasoning perfectly and agree with it, there is only one problem. You can take away these "rights" as they are because they will be harming the baby, but what if you are taking away their "right" to abort the baby. Please understand that I disagree with abortion morally as well, and would do what I could to not let it happen in my family. But, when a woman has been volently raped and she gets pregnant, how can you force her to keep this seed from a violent criminal and then strip her of all of these rights as well?? What if she is an addicted smoker, or an alcoholic? What if she cannot stop doing these things because she is addicted to them? Is she to be prosecuted for this by the government that didn't protect her by outlawing these addictive things in the first place?? What if she suffers from some disease, mental or physical, and she takes one of these medications (the ones that cannot even be held by a pregnant woman) to help her deal with the disease?

[Edge]

It is only a dream, until the courts make it a reality. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream.

I was talking about everyone respecting each other and forgive each other. It's a dream right now, if I may rephrase. Sounds like world peace.

 

What do you want the court to make illegal? Just abortion or sex before marriage?

 

If you are talking about sex before marriage, well, I disagree, what two people decide to do on their bedroom is only their bussiness and no one elses...

[cwes99_03]

I believe that is a part of this discussion, and thanks for your input.

Do you also believe that they must live with the consequences of this decision, or are they allowed to throw out those consequences and get rid of any child that results. Murder it as Goku has asserted, and several have sided with.

[Edge]

I believe that is a part of this discussion, and thanks for your input.

Do you also believe that they must live with the consequences of this decision, or are they allowed to throw out those consequences and get rid of any child that results. Murder it as Goku has asserted, and several have sided with.

I actually am against abortion except for the cases of rape and when the mother's life is at risk. Undecided on the incest case. I'm not saying that the woman should abort when she gets pregnant as a resulf of a rape or when her life is found on jeopardy, but she should be able to decide.

 

And yes, they should be responsible, I pointed out on the other post:

 

I don't know how to address this. Sex by pleasure, you can have it as long you are willing to face the consequences of it. I guess that responsibility is what we need.

 

And I gotta ask: what do you mean with the courts making that dream possible?

[cwes99_03]

Is she addicted and making a decision to have a child. This decision has responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is that she give up the addictive habit.

but what if you are taking away their "right" to abort the baby.

I'm not sure why you ask that question. The reason I don't understand it is because I'm trying to say that that right should be taken away, that in fact it is not a right. Why should it be a right to abort a baby, when two people made the conscious decision to take that risk that they may have to carry a child?

Parents are supposed to teach their children that all decisions have consequences. How is it responsible for anyone to take away those consequences?

One of the consequences of playing with guns is that someone may get killed. Should we take away that consequence? I'd like to see someone try.

 

Now this does not open the discussion to whether someone who is raped has made that decision to take the risk. I'll reserve that discussion for anyone who can first agree with the above, that if two people make the decision to have sex, then they should not be allowed to abort the result. We aren't playing video games where you can go back to a previous save point.

[cwes99_03]

thanks for bringing that back up to.

I don't know how to address this. Sex by pleasure, you can have it as long you are willing to face the consequences of it. I guess that responsibility is what we need. Dolphins have also sex for pleasure.

How does one know if dolphins are having sex for pleasure?

 

The courts made the decision that discrimination was against the law, thus paving the way to make it possible for MLK Jr's dream to become a lot closer to reality.

[Edge]

thanks for bringing that back up to.

How does one know if dolphins are having sex for pleasure?

Well, I have a source for this.

 

The courts made the decision that discrimination was against the law, thus paving the way to make it possible for MLK Jr's dream to become a lot closer to reality.

No, but I was referring to your ideal society that live like in the Biblical Times. How would the court make it? And should it be allowed?

[rockytriton]

cwes, you are taking what I was saying out of context. Everything that I said was in the context of the mother being violently raped, not with consent. So all of this about consequences of decisions is invalid in this context, I absolutely agree with you out of this context though.