|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996 |
.... sometimes the father is trying to stop the killing of his child by a woman exercising her "rights over my own body"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,986
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,986 |
But if the woman doesn't believe the fetus is a viable human, she isn't choosing to kill. If people don't have this belief, whether or not it's the truth, they are not choosing to kill but choosing to not be pregnant. If that's truly the case, then here on MB, a person who has an affair is not committing adultery as long as they don't believe it's adultery, but a choice. So are they committing adultery or not?
Widowed 11/10/12 after 35 years of marriage ********************* “In a sense now, I am homeless. For the home, the place of refuge, solitude, love-where my husband lived-no longer exists.” Joyce Carolyn Oates, A Widow's Story
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044 |
But if the woman doesn't believe the fetus is a viable human, she isn't choosing to kill. If people don't have this belief, whether or not it's the truth, they are not choosing to kill but choosing to not be pregnant. so, if your ex husband doesn't believe that cheating is wrong...is he in fact not cheating? Look, there are people out there that think sex with children is okay...that doesn't change the FACT that is isn't. Abortion is murder. Anyone that supports the right to choose is in fact guilty by association. It doesn't matter if one believes it or not.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996 |
But if the woman doesn't believe the fetus is a viable human, she isn't choosing to kill. If people don't have this belief, whether or not it's the truth, they are not choosing to kill but choosing to not be pregnant. Scott Peterson would have liked his case to have been decided on him committing ONE homicide, not two. Abortion rights advocates wanted Peterson to get away with murdering his infant! Apr 24, 2003 | When Mavra Start, head of the Morris County, N.J., chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW), told a local newspaper that charging Scott Peterson with double murder in the death of his wife Laci and unborn son Conner could aid the antiabortion movement, she was blindsided by fierce criticism -- some of which came from feminists. In less than 24 hours, Start backed off from her comments, saying that she was merely "thinking out loud."
The conflict raised by the double murder charges against is a painful one, made worse by the obvious suffering of the young woman's family. But the quiet controversy around a California law that recognizes a fetus as a full-fledged murder victim raises a fundamental question that threatens to split the feminist movement as it battles to maintain a woman's legal right to abortion: Do laws that criminalize fetal harm encroach on the rights of the mother?
Antiabortion advocates, emboldened by the appointments of staunch supporters to influential posts within the Bush administration, have been seen to gain some important ground through laws that protect fetal rights. One frequently cited measure, initiated by Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, extends prenatal health insurance to fetuses, rather than their mothers. Recent moves to ban late-term abortion -- dubbed partial-birth abortion by the right -- also focus on fetal, not maternal, welfare, say choice advocates. Fetal harm laws also have been used to penalize women for using drugs or drinking during pregnancy. And laws that provide for double murder charges in the homicide of a pregnant woman are similarly threatening, some reproductive rights advocates say. By systematically strengthening the legal rights of the fetus, a woman's right to choose is irrevocably weakened.
In fact, many abortion rights groups, feminist organizations and domestic violence associations opposed the California law that makes it a crime to kill a fetus, a law that's on the books in some form in 22 other states. But the apparent united front among these activists masks internal dissent about what positions these groups should take on laws that increase penalties for attacks on pregnant women. And the question is asked by both sides: Can pro-choice activists support laws that demand higher penalties for killing a fetus at the same time they call for a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy?
The debate is critically important now in light of startling new data revealing that homicide is the number one cause of death among pregnant women in America.
"It's a tough issue," says Frances Olsen, a UCLA law professor and specialist in feminist legal theory. "My view is pro-choice and pro-protecting fetuses that expectant mothers have created. I think there should be a larger penalty for attacks on pregnant women -- especially when the pregnancy may be the reason for the attack.
"But it's a dilemma for activists," she acknowledges. "On the one hand, fetal homicide laws make a lot of sense. On the other hand, they're being promoted too much by people who don't have women's interests at heart. There's always a problem of laws being misused. But it's outrageous that we can't try to protect something so important to women because it can be used against it." full article here Using your logic, Peterson was exercising his right to choose abortion for his wife - he did not murder his child. He murdered his wife and aborted his child.
Last edited by Pepperband; 11/13/08 12:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,531
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,531 |
so, if your ex husband doesn't believe that cheating is wrong...is he in fact not cheating? Except that he did believe cheating is wrong. Look, there are people out there that think sex with children is okay...that doesn't change the FACT that is isn't. I'm not arguing this. But telling someone so doesn't change their beliefs and, therefore, their actions. Abortion is murder. Anyone that supports the right to choose is in fact guilty by association. It doesn't matter if one believes it or not. One could also say that anyone that supports taking a woman's right to her own body away is a misogynist, or at bare minimum in support of oppressing women. I'm not trying to argue the (im)morality of abortion. People believe what they believe. All I'm saying is there are ways to reduce the numbers of abortion, regardless of theses differences. Many of these things can be done personally. You can volunteer for the united way or a womens shelter. You can donate money to help provide health care to pregnant teens - all sorts of things. Wouldn't you feel good if you could save even just one? You can call me a murderer if you want MEDC. But I have not only never killed anyone, I have saved lives and this is fact which is a lot more valuable than the opinion of a stranger on the internet.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,069
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,069 |
"This is a related issue, but not the same issue. I firmly believe we need much better and more thorough sex education. Children, boys and girls, should go into puberty knowing everything there is to know about sex, pregnancy, STDs, birth control and yes, even abortion. They should be comfortable enough to ask questions and have discussions with their parents."
I agree with you on this. Parents need to step up.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996 |
All I'm saying is there are ways to reduce the numbers of abortion, regardless of theses differences. If abortion is "OK" there is NO reason to reduce the number.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,531
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,531 |
All I'm saying is there are ways to reduce the numbers of abortion, regardless of theses differences. If abortion is "OK" there is NO reason to reduce the number. Which side of this argument are you on? Again, the title of this thread is "How to reduce abortion numbers." This is what I'm responding to. I already said in my first post I am anti-abortion. I also said I was pro-choice and explained why that is not a contradiction in terms. Do you want to reduce abortion or don't you? If not, why are you reading this thread?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996 |
If not, why are you reading this thread? To point out inconsistencies in your logic. If "pro choice" means ability to choose abortion if one wants to, there should not be a limit of that choice - WHAT is your LOGIC for restricting a legitimate choice?If there is nothing wrong with having an abortion - then to speak of limiting abortions is illogical.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996 |
Do you want to reduce abortion or don't you? I want to eliminate abortion not reduce it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,531
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,531 |
To point out inconsistencies in your logic.
If "pro choice" means ability to choose abortion if one wants to, there should not be a limit of that choice - WHAT is your LOGIC for restricting a legitimate choice? I believe the individual should have the choice. I never mentioned a thing about limiting or restricting that choice. I am simply describing ways I believe would reduce the number of abortions without taking away the choices of the individuals involved. Rather that take away their choice, make it so the choice to have an abortion is worse than being pregnant - even for those who don't believe there is anything wrong with abortion in the first place. If there is nothing wrong with having an abortion - then to speak of limiting abortions is illogical. I never there wasn't anything wrong. In fact, I said I was anti-abortion. However, I'm also against suppressing human rights of any kind - including a woman's right to her own body. This is not the same as being pro-abortion. Many women, including myself, CHOSE to remain pregnant. My son is alive today because of MY CHOICE, not some regulator's or any other third party. MINE. I cannot possibly illustrate how critical this is. To take that away from me makes me a broodmare, not the mother that I CHOSE to be. So what that means is that I have to accept that some woman may choose something I do not support. So instead of sitting back, I will do what I can to influence things so that this choice is less attractive and made less often. It is far more effective than pure legislation and it doesn't turn these women into livestock.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,531
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,531 |
I want to eliminate abortion not reduce it. I would like to eliminate war as well but it's not going to happen. So, how do you think abortions can be reduced?
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015 |
Tabby1 said: Not everyone views abortion as murder. Not everyone believes in the same God.
MelodyLane said: I agree. Just as the Germans once believed that murdering Jews was not "murder" but a duty to mankind to rid the world of subhuman pests. However, perspective is not truth. We are not talking about individual perspectives, but about TRUTH. And the truth is that abortion is murder. The truth is that killing Jews is murder. Killing a human being is murder.
Even so, if everyone has a right to their own PERSPECTIVE and there are no moral absolutes, as you assert, then those of us who say it is murder, based on a universal moral absolute are just as legitimate as those who disagree, no? Tabby1 responded: Because people's ethics and behavior are according to their perspective. Perhaps abortion being murder is the truth. There are many who believe otherwise. Enough that they choose abortion, even under circumstances which risk their own lives. Using this argument against them is pointless as they have their own beliefs. However, these same people, if presented with better options, will be less likely to choose abortion. It won't eliminate abortions but it will reduce their frequency.Tabby, I'd like to spend a little time discussing these "talking points" you tossed out. 1. Because people's ethics and behavior are according to their perspective. This is the argument for "Moral Relativity." To embrace this philosophy means that each individual can decide what is right and wrong FOR THEMSELVES, and no one can say that they are "wrong." That is the "slippery slope" when "absolutes" that transcend all individuals are tossed out and are replaced with "whatever I want." Some people will "argue" that "society" can decide some "absolutes" (i.e. premeditated murder is "always" wrong) AND impose that moral absolute on everyone in the given society, and often even on those who may be in a different society. But then we are in the position of "ceding" to the "society" the definition of "right and wrong. That might be all that bad, except for the fact that society often changes its definitions and what was once "wrong" can become "right." We are seeing that sort of thing with the issue of Homosexuals who want to be in a committed relationship BUT who want to change the definition of "Marriage." Marriage is, and has been for thousands of years, DEFINED as between a Man and Woman. Regardless of the religious aspect of marriage, "marriage" is by definition between genders, between a man and a woman. With respect to a baby, it has been for thousands of years thought of AS a baby even while in the womb in the initial phases of development. But NOW people, and a lot of "society" wants to "redefine" that baby into something less "repugnant sounding" in order to make killing that unborn baby more "acceptable." But abortion IS "premeditated murder" of a baby. All that is happening is a redefining of terms to make it seem more "acceptable," and to allow the "greedy" to profit by the procedure. 2. Perhaps abortion being murder is the truth. There are many who believe otherwise.It IS the truth. That baby IS a distinct being, separate from the mother yet dependent upon the mother, as it is dependent on mother-father-others as an infant, for its nourishment and continued life. Regardless of what others "think," all they are doing is applying "moral relativism" to enable them to do whatever they want to do. 3. Enough that they choose abortion, even under circumstances which risk their own lives. Using this argument against them is pointless as they have their own beliefs. That people will DO what they WANT to do is not abnormal. People make those types of choices all the time. People drink and choose to drive. People have sex and choose to risk terminal STD's and getting pregnant as a consequence of their CHOICE to engage in an activity that they DON'T "have to" engage in. SOME people will NEVER listen to any argument that what they are doing is "wrong." Some people WILL listen, especially if give ALL the facts and not the slanted facts that they receive from places like Planned Parenthood. Some people will NEVER "give up" their Affair Partner, and some will. Should NO effort be made to TRY to "change their minds? 4. However, these same people, if presented with better options, will be less likely to choose abortion. It won't eliminate abortions but it will reduce their frequency.How about this for a "better option?" DO NOT have sex with anyone outside of being married to another person? How about DO NOT have sex without multiple birth control methods being used? How about "thou shalt not kill" as a better option? How about recognizing the inherent sanctity of life that is present in all human beings and that any given individual is NOT "entitled" to take that life from someone else, "just because they want to?" MelodyLane said: I would also add that one does not have to believe in God to know right from wrong. I know atheists who know right from wrong.
Tabby1 responded: And there are also cultures that believe female genital mutilation is right and you can't convince them otherwise from a moral perspective because their beliefs are so much different from ours. You have to look to their direct individual needs. Tabby1 added: *I just wanted to add that the "choice" aspect of abortion is the choice not to remain pregnant, not whether or not to have a child.
To which MelodyLane responded: Exactly. It is a choice to KILL. But no one is telling a woman what to do with her body. She is the one who got pregnant. The issue is the BABY'S BODY. Tabby1 responded: But if the woman doesn't believe the fetus is a viable human, she isn't choosing to kill. If people don't have this belief, whether or not it's the truth, they are not choosing to kill but choosing to not be pregnant. Tabby1 - "choosing to not be pregnant" NECESSITATES killing the reason someone IS pregnant (the baby), according to the way you are using your argument. It is just another way to try to "clean up" the choice to kill a baby and try to make it something other than what it is. Now, if you are serious about the "choice to not be pregnant," then do what I suggested earlier and REQUIRE a couple engaging in sex to use MULTIPLE birth control methods as their "choice" to choose "not to be pregnant." Do NOT play "Russian Roulette" with a loaded gun and "expect" that you can "take the bullet back" once it's been fired. Take ALL the bullets out of the gun, remove the firing pin, put a bullet with no powder in the gun, or put the gun somewhere in the room so that it COULD be used, but the "odds" are extremely remote, if not non-existant. Tabby1 said: It's so knee jerk to condemn the woman for getting pregnant but she didn't do it herself. Where is the father? At least these days there are DNA tests to prove who he is but in the past it wasn't so. If an unmarried women got pregnant, she bore the consequences on her own. At least this is one thing that is changing. Tabby, unless the woman was raped, she CHOSE to engage in sex knowing full well that ONLY women "get pregnant." So while I agree that the "father" has a responsibility, the "courts" have said that the father does NOT have ANY say in whether or not his girlfriend or wife can have an abortion. So "where is the father" is a "red herring" argument when applied to the abortion issue. The MOTHER relinquished the "choice" for abortion when she CHOSE to engage in sex, KNOWING that a pregnancy could result, as that is HOW women become pregnant. So to "accommodate" her "right" to have sex whenever and with whomever she CHOOSES, abortion advocates now want to give her the "additional" birth control method of KILLING the resultant baby. That's NOT a choice. That's an excuse for murder. And they try to take the "sting" out of it by relentlessly trying to call the baby something "sub-human" in order to not have to deal with "absolute moral standards."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
Because people's ethics and behavior are according to their perspective. Perhaps abortion being murder is the truth. There are many who believe otherwise. Enough that they choose abortion, even under circumstances which risk their own lives. Using this argument against them is pointless as they have their own beliefs. However, these same people, if presented with better options, will be less likely to choose abortion. It won't eliminate abortions but it will reduce their frequency. Tabby, because people's ethics and behavior are according to their perspective. Perhaps Jew killing being wrong is the truth. There are many who believe otherwise. Enough that they choose Jew killing, even under circumstances which risk their own lives. Using this argument against them is pointless as they have their own beliefs. However, these same people, if presented with better options, will be less likely to choose Jew killing. It won't eliminate Jew killing but it will reduce their frequency. Tabby, I just used your own logic on the crime of killing Jews. Does it make any sense to you? Instead of hanging key Germans at Nuremberg, should we have just let it slide on the basis that murdering Jews was ok in their perspective? That it was our obligation to "present them with better options" so they will be less likely to kill Jews? Did we commit a terrible miscarriage of justice when we decided that the "perspective" of WW11 Germans was wrong and hung them at Nuremburg? Since everyone is entitled to their "own perspective" should we therefore unlock our prisons and free the rapists and murderers? Because according to their "perspective" they are justified in raping and murdering. I just don't think you have thought alot of this through carefully.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015 |
So, how do you think abortions can be reduced? Eliminate "abortion on demand" and require legitimate reasons (i.e., rape, incest, REAL potential physical harm or death to the mother, etc.) "Health of the mother," the way the law is interpreted today, is ANYTHING that is not what the mother "wants." "I don't WANT to be pregnant" is good enough to say the "mental health of the mother" is sufficient CAUSE to kill the baby because it would cause "undo stress" on her to actually carry and deliver the baby.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
So, how do you think abortions can be reduced? hey, I know! In 1973, the # of abortions was HALF of that in the years following. Perhaps we could cut the # of abortions BY HALF very quickly if we undid whatever happened in 1973?
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
[I believe the individual should have the choice. I never mentioned a thing about limiting or restricting that choice. So you would advocate that all individuals have a "choice?" Most particularly, the one whose life is up for grabs? Or just choice for some?
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,652
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,652 |
If abortion is murder, with absolutely NO variation in degree of "wrongness" from murdering a born person, and if there should be no attempt at reducing the numbers short of absolutely eliminating all abortions, then why is there usually an exception granted in cases of rape and incest?
Even if I'm raped, that doesn't give me the right to kill someone who didn't rape me. Or does it?
me - 47 H - 39 married 2001 DS 8a DS 8b :crosseyedcrazy: (Why is DS7b now a blockhead???) (Ack! Now he's not even a blockhead, just a word! That's no fun!)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985 Likes: 1 |
If abortion is murder, with absolutely NO variation in degree of "wrongness" from murdering a born person, and if there should be no attempt at reducing the numbers short of absolutely eliminating all abortions, then why is there usually an exception granted in cases of rape and incest?
Even if I'm raped, that doesn't give me the right to kill someone who didn't rape me. Or does it? I have the same question too.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt Exposure 101
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,108
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,108 |
There shouldn't be any but if the goal was to at least reduce the number start with one allowed abortion per woman. You get preggers again and don't want the baby then it should be taken away and adopted. The woman then gets sterilzed. But there would be outcrys about privacy violations, reproductive rights, blah, blah so we know how far this would go...there will never be an answer to reduce abortions. Either they are allowed or they aren't.
BW - me exWH - serial cheater 2 awesome kids Divorced 12/2011
Many a good man has failed because he had a wishbone where his backbone should have been.
We gain strength, and courage, and confidence by each experience in which we really stop to look fear in the face... we must do that which we think we cannot. --------Eleanor Roosevelt
|
|
|
Moderated by Ariel, BerlinMB, Denali, Fordude, IrishGreen, MBeliever, MBSync, McLovin, Mizar, PhoenixMB, Toujours
1 members (TALKINGNONSENSE),
154
guests, and
63
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums67
Topics133,619
Posts2,323,475
Members71,920
|
Most Online3,185 Jan 27th, 2020
|
|
|
|