Thread: Abortion: split from stem cell research

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

We're going to have to disagree on that notion of "the bodies of others," at least in short term pregnancies.

But I'm curious. Are you saying that we have no fundamental right to the sanctity of our own bodies from government control, or are you saying that we have that right, but that the "rights" of the clump of cells in a woman's body trump it?

j

I am saying that both you and I are clumps of cells, are we not?

Why should government control someone who is beating their children? That really isn't any of their business, is it? Or is it a matter of we as a society looking to protect those who cannot do so for themselves?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I am saying that both you and I are clumps of cells, are we not?

Why should government control someone who is beating their children? That really isn't any of their business, is it? Or is it a matter of we as a society looking to protect those who cannot do so for themselves?

So you have no problem with government controlling our lives and bodies? What's next? Taking bone marrow by force? Take a kidney to save a deserving politician? Kind of a human body eminent domain?

I'm afraid that you and I are at an impasse here.

I am not just a clump of cells. I'm a sentient human being with thoughts and creativity, and I won't stand for government trying to control my person in that way.

End of discussion, I guess.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

So you have no problem with government controlling our lives and bodies? What's next? Taking bone marrow by force? Take a kidney to save a deserving politician? Kind of a human body eminent domain?

I'm afraid that you and I are at an impasse here.

I am not just a clump of cells. I'm a sentient human being with thoughts and creativity, and I won't stand for government trying to control my person in that way.

End of discussion, I guess.

j

Why the end of the discussion?

You and I may heve differing views on it, but isn't that what "The Conversation" is all about?

My point is that if left alone, that clump of cells would become a sentient human being like you or I within 9 months. At which point it could cease to be an issue in the mother's life if that is what they chose to do.

You analogy of taking things by force, to me at least speaks more to what is done to the unborn, than what is done to anybody else.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Why the end of the discussion?

You and I may heve differing views on it, but isn't that what "The Conversation" is all about?

My point is that if left alone, that clump of cells would become a sentient human being like you or I within 9 months. At which point it could cease to be an issue in the mother's life if that is what they chose to do.

You analogy of taking things by force, to me at least speaks more to what is done to the unborn, than what is done to anybody else.

Ah, yes, the great Reverence for Life. Begins at conception and ends at birth.

We have reached the end of the discussion because your stated principle is that nothing is more important than allowing every fertilized egg to develop into a human being, and you seem willing to sacrifice anything to that principle.

I accept that that is your principle, as much as I don't understand it. But it doesn't leave much room for discussion, especially when it's not accompanied by a consideration of how that principle affects other issues.

No foul.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

I'm a sentient human being with thoughts and creativity, and I won't stand for government trying to control my person in that way.

Good!

Is abortion ever murder? Is it ever manslaughter? Or is it ever child negligence, etc. Aren't those questions we are driving at? We agree government should stay out of our personal decisions, but only so far as we do not commit those crimes. The morality and the legality are supposed to dovetail when it comes to individuals' rights to life and liberty

There will never be a time when I have the right to put out a hit on an innocent person regardless of how that person came about or how that person's life is entwined with my own. The question that must still be answered is when is that baby endowed with individual human rights?

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

We can dink around forever about when life begins. Most Americans, at least, believe that an embryo is not human until later in the gestation cycle. The borderline is fuzzy, which is why we have the debate. But there is little resistance to assuming humanity in the third trimester.

But what's disturbing me is that nobody seems at all worried about government telling people what they can and can't do with their own bodies. This is a forum that regularly incites revolution to support the right to own bits of metal and wood or plastic that go boom when a trigger is pulled, yet nobody seems at all disturbed over the notion that government will take control of our lives in the most fundamental of ways.

This disturbs me more than I can say.

j

If you think that humanity starts in the third trimester, then do you think the government should be able to ban abortion in the third trimester as murder, or do you think that kind of murder is ok because the right to do whatever you want with your body trumps the right to life of the third trimester human?

Not everything that is immoral is illegal, nor should it be. Government doesn't belong in everything. That includes third trimester abortion.

We know beyond all shadow of a doubt that prohibition of abortion does not work. How do we know? Because of the millions upon millions of abortions that were performed in back alleys before Roe v. Wade. You're asking government to institute an empty prohibition, the only result of which will be the establishment of the principle that government has the right to tell individuals what to do with their own bodies. I cannot believe that this does not scare you.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Not everything that is immoral is illegal, nor should it be. Government doesn't belong in everything. That includes third trimester abortion.

We know beyond all shadow of a doubt that prohibition of abortion does not work. How do we know? Because of the millions upon millions of abortions that were performed in back alleys before Roe v. Wade. You're asking government to institute an empty prohibition, the only result of which will be the establishment of the principle that government has the right to tell individuals what to do with their own bodies. I cannot believe that this does not scare you.

j

Your position surprises me. Obviously not everthing immoral is illegal, and not everything that's illegal is immoral. But usually murder isn't one of those things that people think should be legal even though it's immoral. So if you think a fetus only becomes human in third trimester, and therefore first and second term abortions are A OK, I'm very surprised you think killing a human third trimester baby should be legal. If you had six months to kill the fetus before it became human, you are stretching the sanctity of one's body pretty far, because you are saying you can even commit murder when you had six months to make the decision when it wouldn't have been murder. That's a little indulgent for my taste. It's a tougher issue for me because I think it's human immediately, so for me there's no "whoopsie" period.

If you read my post above, you'll see that I think as a practical matter it's a bad idea to illegalize abortion because I agree that would lead to a rush in back alley abortions, but to go back to your original position, I think it's a mistake to lionize abortion as the expression of a sacrosanct right to your body because that encourages it - instead, I think it should be scorned for what it is, and birth control and not engaging in irresponsible intercourse should be tought aggressively, so that we minimize its incidence. It should be legal, but I don't think that should give any comfort to the people that do it. And to be fair, I think many that have done would say that they don't take much comfort in what they did. But it's not an issue that is well served with moral absolutes like "sanctity of body" because it's a nasty issue for people in that zone and there are no morally comforting resolutions. You kill something real or you turn your life upside down - no sanctity in that. And if you abort a five month fetus, and you think it's murkey whether that's human, how do you feel that you "might" have murdered a human? Ok because your body is sacrosanct?

It's a tough issue and ultimately we have to support people living through it, but I don't think it should be portrayed as any less diabolical of a decision than it is, and kids should be taught that so that they don't put themselves in that position.

Originally Posted by loueedacat

Your position surprises me. Obviously not everthing immoral is illegal, and not everything that's illegal is immoral. But usually murder isn't one of those things that people think should be legal even though it's immoral. So if you think a fetus only becomes human in third trimester, and therefore first and second term abortions are A OK, I'm very surprised you think killing a human third trimester baby should be legal. If you had six months to kill the fetus before it became human, you are stretching the sanctity of one's body pretty far, because you are saying you can even commit murder when you had six months to make the decision when it wouldn't have been murder. That's a little indulgent for my taste. It's a tougher issue for me because I think it's human immediately, so for me there's no "whoopsie" period.

If you read my post above, you'll see that I think as a practical matter it's a bad idea to illegalize abortion because I agree that would lead to a rush in back alley abortions, but to go back to your original position, I think it's a mistake to lionize abortion as the expression of a sacrosanct right to your body because that encourages it - instead, I think it should be scorned for what it is, and birth control and not engaging in irresponsible intercourse should be tought aggressively, so that we minimize its incidence. It should be legal, but I don't think that should give any comfort to the people that do it. And to be fair, I think many that have done would say that they don't take much comfort in what they did. But it's not an issue that is well served with moral absolutes like "sanctity of body" because it's a nasty issue for people in that zone and there are no morally comforting resolutions. You kill something real or you turn your life upside down - no sanctity in that. And if you abort a five month fetus, and you think it's murkey whether that's human, how do you feel that you "might" have murdered a human? Ok because your body is sacrosanct?

It's a tough issue and ultimately we have to support people living through it, but I don't think it should be portrayed as any less diabolical of a decision than it is, and kids should be taught that so that they don't put themselves in that position.

What part of "immoral" do you not understand? How have I "lionized" abortion? Have you read any of my posts on the subject?

Abortion is not murder. It is abortion. Abortion in the late term -- which happens very seldom -- is morally hard to defend, in the absence of a real danger to the mother, but it is not murder. Murder is of a human being, not a potential human being.

Only a small fringe group regards abortion as murder, and calling it such kind of shuts of the conversation.

Failing to do what's right because it might "lionize abortion as the expression of a sacrosanct right to your body" is absurd. It's cutting of your nose to spite your face. There are far more issues at stake than the comfort of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy. We're already having problems with that, having HMOs deny medical coverage because people shouldn't want the treatment, in their opinion.

It surprised me that you have no concern about government telling individuals what they can do with their own bodies. To each his own, I guess, but it's important to me. And if someone is asking me to give up that principle for a prohibition of something, that prohibition had better work, or I assure you, that is not the end of the conversation. And as we know, prohibition of abortion doesn't work. It. Does. Not. Work.

The world is seldom black and white, and wishing doesn't make it so.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

The world is seldom black and white, and wishing doesn't make it so.

j

I was actually going to make this my reply to your post but you beat me to it.