Trial averted over human life beginning - Page 44

George · 09-18-2007, 04:27 PM

"Valid". Interesting choice of words. Whether or not they are 'equally valid' would depend upon how you are using 'valid'.

Valid in that you make no presumptions about the worth of one life over another. .

Because when two people share one body, one of them has to have the 'superior' rights.

The fetus cannot exist without the mother, but she can exist without the fetus. This gives her a superior standing. The body itself, belongs to her. She is an aware, sentient human being. The fetus isn't. She may have other aware, sentient human beings dependent upon her. The fetus doesn't.

I agree with you here, but only in an either/or situation. IF the mother would die without an abortion then a choice has to be made. If the pregnancy is less than 22 weeks then there is no choice. After that time then the logical decision would be an abortion but some mothers allow the baby to live and give up their own lives. Whatever, the foetus cannot give an opinion so in that situation the mother makes the decision. I would not, however, say 'superior rights', just capability.

Finally, simple common sense. Criminalizing abortion will not stop abortion. It will only make it dangerous for poor women.

IMO, abortion should be safe, legal and Rare.

Again, I agree. There are (IMO very limited) situations where abortions are necessary. What I have a problem with is abortion as a right and those who argue that any restictions on abortion is somehow designed to oppress women.

Under our Constitution, the only way to subtract rights from a person, is if they have been convicted of certain crimes.

Since pregnancy is not a crime: how do you propose giving the ZEF 'equal rights' without subtracting rights from the mother?

Again, assuming that both are equal then that is a perfect argument to prevent abortion. The child has not commited any crime. Abortion takes from the child the right to life. This right surely has precedence over the right to bear arms, the right to persue happiness and so forth.

Catus Felidae · 09-18-2007, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George

"Valid". Interesting choice of words. Whether or not they are 'equally valid' would depend upon how you are using 'valid'.

Valid in that you make no presumptions about the worth of one life over another. .

But can you make that presumption? If a mother already has children, or obligations in her life, wouldn't her life therefore be worth more than that of the fetus?

Because when two people share one body, one of them has to have the 'superior' rights.

The fetus cannot exist without the mother, but she can exist without the fetus. This gives her a superior standing. The body itself, belongs to her. She is an aware, sentient human being. The fetus isn't. She may have other aware, sentient human beings dependent upon her. The fetus doesn't.

I agree with you here, but only in an either/or situation. IF the mother would die without an abortion then a choice has to be made.

By adding the qualification 'if the mother would die' implies that it is always known whether or not the mother would die. That's not always true.

If the pregnancy is less than 22 weeks then there is no choice. After that time then the logical decision would be an abortion but some mothers allow the baby to live and give up their own lives. Whatever, the foetus cannot give an opinion so in that situation the mother makes the decision. I would not, however, say 'superior rights', just capability.

But infants do not have the capability to make choices, but they do have certain rights. The parents however, in some cases, have the right to effectively over rule those rights.

Finally, simple common sense. Criminalizing abortion will not stop abortion. It will only make it dangerous for poor women.

IMO, abortion should be safe, legal and Rare.

Again, I agree. There are (IMO very limited) situations where abortions are necessary. What I have a problem with is abortion as a right and those who argue that any restictions on abortion is somehow designed to oppress women.

I don't think that all anti choice people are actively wanting to oppress women, but intent and result are not always the same. When the rights to a womans body are taken from her and given to someone else, what else can you call it but oppression?

Under our Constitution, the only way to subtract rights from a person, is if they have been convicted of certain crimes.

Since pregnancy is not a crime: how do you propose giving the ZEF 'equal rights' without subtracting rights from the mother?

Again, assuming that both are equal then that is a perfect argument to prevent abortion. The child has not commited any crime. Abortion takes from the child the right to life. This right surely has precedence over the right to bear arms, the right to persue happiness and so forth.

Regarding our hypothetical child with rights: The child has not committed a crime, but neither has the mother. How then do you argue for taking her rights while using the same reason to argue against taking the rights of the child?

The Constitution specifies rights. It does not rate them as to importance or value when compared to each other.

George · 09-18-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catus Felidae

Regarding our hypothetical child with rights: The child has not committed a crime, but neither has the mother. How then do you argue for taking her rights while using the same reason to argue against taking the rights of the child?

The Constitution specifies rights. It does not rate them as to importance or value when compared to each other.

It's a mexican standoff, isn't it?

With regard to slavery, you had the right to liberty directly opposed to the right to property. An argument was made then that some people's rights were less important as they were not 'proper humans'.

Sometimes you just have to choose the lesser of two evils.

George · 09-18-2007, 04:44 PM

OK, it's almost midnight here so much as I'm enjoying this I need to sleep. Thanks for the input Catus.

Catus Felidae · 09-18-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George

It's a mexican standoff, isn't it?

Yup. When you need a 'majority vote' and only two people are voting, it's always going to be a tie.

With regard to slavery, you had the right to liberty directly opposed to the right to property. An argument was made then that some people's rights were less important as they were not 'proper humans'.

The argument could be made that forcing a woman to gestate is akin to 'slavery'.

Sometimes you just have to choose the lesser of two evils.

Yes, you do. To my mind, safe legal abortion is the lesser evil than unsafe illegal abortion.

I must say I have throughly enjoyed this discussion. It's nice to exchange thoughts and ideas with someone who can do so without spitting and clawing.

(Although I do enjoy a good cat fight now and then.

)

Catus Felidae · 09-18-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George

OK, it's almost midnight here so much as I'm enjoying this I need to sleep. Thanks for the input Catus.

Any time.

It's almost dinner time here, so I need to go start rattling the pots and pans.

baloney_detector · 09-18-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catus Felidae

The Constitution specifies rights. It does not rate them as to importance or value when compared to each other.

I'd add that there are rights that exist that aren't explicitly (or even implicitly) stated as such in the US Constitution...such as the "right to privacy."

The US Constitution provides for these rights with the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

ccvasquez · 09-18-2007, 09:37 PM

Why is "infringing on the rights of others" the standard to judge the acceptability of an action?

Okay, this is spiraling into the 'just plain dumb' catagory of questions.

Answer the question. It has a purpose.

Is "infringement on the rights of others" your "golden rule" against which you judge the morality or acceptability of an action?