POLL: Abortion - Yeah or Ney?

Remove all ads!

Ah, yes. By all means, let's do so. But let's try a different track rather than your holier-than-thou, ( and "you are all just a bunch of baby killers anyway") approach to this issue.

Actually that is what it means. Remember, these are God given rights, not subject to our own whim. That we apply the law unevenly is a concern that is largely beyond our control. Jefferson believed that the "fires of revolution" would consume all the western world once American independence was achieved. He believed that France would be first, which it was, but turned out differently than he imagined. In fact, he helped Lafayette draft a document for the Franch Estates while there. Your example, from Jefferson's lofty altitude, would have been an irrelelvant detail. Jefferson believed that these were the Rights of Man. Remember that when he wrote them there wasn't even an American nation to speak of, so your notion of "citizenship" is irrelevant anyway.

Well, Jefferson borrowed that line from an Englishman from the previous century. I can't recall his name, but it was during the English revolution that the words were orginally written. Jefferson used them for his own written document for the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration, which he was too ill to attend. In fact, I believe it was his last public statement.

And that should include that "no woman should be ridden either" (sorry for the poor illustration again). Although that seems to be what some of you are arguing for. Let me explain a different way to look at this issue. The creation of a baby, from the moment of conception to the moment of birth, is a "process." It is perhaps the most miraculous of any process that we can imagine. What is wrong with abortion has nothing to do with cells, but about interrupting that process. And to carry it further, what is created is a family, hopefully a man, a woman and a child. We wrap this in an institution called marriage, which makes it highly individualistic, rather than communal. The family is harbored in the protection of ritualistic custom and Law. But the real miracle is the Love that is created out of this arrangement. It moves us that much closer to God. It makes us human in the special sense that God meant for us to be, not just a bunch of "breeders." The idea of the "woman breeder" is perhaps fine for a patriarchal society (ancient Rome maybe), where there was a "hierarchy" of rights, (and class) mostly belonging to males. Children and women were all but the property of men in that "enlightened age."

If we peal away the prejudical nonsense that women are "child killers," and look at what is powering the choice here, it becomes that of a male dominated society. That you are ranting about "child sacrifice" in the Bible, proves that you have no real illustration from the Bible to support your argument. Perhaps the Pope can help you out here. Ah, but wait, aren't women unfit to be priests also? Too bad for them. Oh, St. Paul said so? And he would be a Roman maybe? Surprise!

Ah, yes, and you support the War in Iraq? So much for Life as a God-given right. All those dead Iraqi children I see blown up on the news must NOT fall into the catagory of "all men are created equal." Too bad for them also. You have a strange sense of how "life can only be revoked by the Creator." Or how about the death penalty? Too bad for those guys too, I guess. Maybe, people really can make life and death decisions.

The people of Iraq are dying for what? Liberty you say? As I said, all three rights are related. What good is a life without liberty? "Give me Liberty or give me Death," some American once said. Do you think it might be important to the human condition? I do. But to all humans. Not just the males.

Yes, but the faces of Iraqi children don't count, I guess. That's right, they are not American citizens anyway.

That women have rights may seem an alien idea to your thought process. While you may agrue for the rights of the unborn in your Declaration, I don't hear or see anythiing of the mother's situation. While you do seem to admit that the situation does make her a "slave," and that you are willing to enhance society's view (which you equate as being the same as God's) but you still would diminish a woman's Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness. So you are left with: If it means killing an unborn child, then it is OK for another American to become a slave. It is strange to hear "one American trying to talk another American into becoming a slave."

So much for "Give me Liberty, or give me Death." But maybe it was a man who said that.

On a final note:

Yes, but they did not have satellite dishes, drive Cadillacs, and have affairs with the likes of Jessica Hahn.

[ June 03, 2004, 04:50: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Hold a moment, Chandos, my friend - I think you're overreacting. We're agreed that it's never right to treat women as objects - whether sex objects or breeding machines. I defy you to find anywhere in my posts - in ANY post I've EVER written in the past year - a claim that women have no rights, or are fit only for breeding, or should be enslaved by men. Actually, I defy you to find anything I've written that's the least bit demeaning of women in a sexual context - even so much as a blonde joke! The only exception, I suppose, is abortion - which I firmly believe is the most ugly and demeaning act that can ever be done to a woman.

And please pardon me if my tone sounds "holier-than-thou". It's not intended as such. Arrogance in any form is evil, particularly when it wears the guise of morality.

But as to your post:

We do treat people unequally. Tall people wear longer pants than short people. Family members sleep in the house, strangers have to be invited in. Citizens are accorded some responsibilities, aliens others. We're supposed to love our spouse in a way that we're not supposed to love others. Etc., etc. This isn't unreasonable, but the very essence of rationality - rational discernment between people who are different physically, mentally, emotionally, culturally, nationally, professionally, and even (yes) sexually. But we move from that to acknowledge that despite these enormous differences, we are all equal in value as human beings, in the sight of God and the Declaration.

Hence my point: that the fetus, despite its many differences from its fellow humans, is still human. As such, like all humans under the Declaration, it merits the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The creation of a baby is indeed a process. But so, too, is the growth from baby to toddler...to little kid...to adolescent...to teenager...to twentysomething...etc. It's all a "process", and every single day is a miracle. I mean that - tomorrow, any of us could be hit by cars, struck by illness, killed by muggers - and the world would keep turning without us. It's a wonder any of us survive to old age - and that makes it that much precious to know someone who has lived a long, full life...and lives yet.

But the beauty of the process does not negate that, at any given moment, the person within the process is still a person. The human baby does not become more human by age ten and superhuman by age sixteen (though many of us think so!). It is no more right, or wrong, to kill someone at thirty years old, thirty months old, or thirty months in the womb - except insofar as the ten-year-old has more social links, and thus more people are harmed by the death.

That has nothing to do with women as "breeders". It has everything to do with the intrinsic value of a human being.

..."prejudicial nonsense"? Those were men that passed Roe v. Wade, men that voted for abortion protections, men that work as abortionists, men that exploit women and then callously abandon them. Arguing about whether or not women are "child killers" is like arguing whether or not Jews are "Christ killers". We're all in this together - we all have blood on our hands.

No real illustration from the Bible? Hmm, let's skim...oh, here's something. Leviticus 18:21 explicitly prohibits child sacrifice. Interestingly, this passage follows twenty verses forbidding various sexual activities outside of marriage. Note the close connection between lust and death - it ain't new. (I'd quote more but it would seem, um, "holier-than-thou".)

A recent book edited by Daniel Maguire, "Sacred Rights", makes the audacious claim that not only do world religions support abortion as a sacred right, but "...to criminalize a right that is grounded in the world's major religions is criminal itself. It is also a form of religious persecution." The book's flimsy evidence is the best argument against itself.

Aye, St. Paul was a Roman...and a Hebrew (Philippians 3:4-6), who spoke Greek and Aramaic (Acts 21:40). Four identities was about as cosmopolitan as you could get in those days, and is a sight better than many of us manage. Given that Paul argues that women should be encouraged to stay single if that's the best fit for their place and personality (I Cor. 7), he can hardly be fairly accused of treating women as mere "breeders".

And incidentally, I'm Protestant. I'll leave interpreting the Pope to chevalier.

As I said, life can only be revoked by the Creator's decision. Specific guidelines are laid out (Genesis 9:6, for instance) governing the few times when the death penalty is appropriate - always grounded not in the lack of value of the executed, but in the enormous value of the one wronged. A society may legitimately and morally execute a murderer, for instance, because the murderer's actions have transgressed the moral law in such a way as to forfeit his right to life. I'm not sure how this is a "strange sense" - to say that humans are so valuable that the wrongful death of another human is the worst crime we know.

As for the unintended killing of Iraqi children during the war and occupation - note the emphasis on "unintended", unlike voluntary abortion. Dead Iraqi children is an unfortunate byproduct of policing, just as dead innocents from police crossfire on American streets. We have as much reason to forbid war and policing because some innocents are unintentionally harmed as we do to ban planes, trains, and automobiles because they unintentionally lead to tens of thousands of innocent deaths.

Married moms have it tough; single moms have it tougher. There's no denying that women still have a harder life than men. But women are no more "slaves" to their children than a man is "slave" to his wife. When a man marries a woman, he commits to her for life - richer or poorer, sickness and health, etc. - forsaking all others. If he keeps that promise - and these days, few men do - then it costs him dearly. It diminishes certain aspects of his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. But he has a moral obligation to keep that promise, and if he breaks it, then it costs the deceived woman (and their children) even more.

Same with a mom and her kid. The mom (like the dad) has a moral obligation to care for her kid. Now, the mom is "free" to deprive, abuse, neglect, abandon, or even kill the kid. But that increase to her life, liberty, and happiness comes at a steep cost.

Neither fathers nor mothers are "slaves" in the old sense of the word. But neither can they exercise total selfish liberty without brutally hurting those who are dependent on them - poisoning those other innocents' life, liberty, and happiness. Should we really be upset that restricting adults' rights to hurt the weakest members of our society "still would diminish a woman's [and man's] Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness"?

If this is how you define slavery - that an innocent is dependent upon another person's sacrifice - then we all are slaves. And heaven protect us from those "free men" who would pretend the right to exploit, seduce, and abuse to protect their own selfish definitions of their rights.

You mentioned the old motto, "Give me Liberty, or give me Death." But it sounds to me like the new motto is, "Give me Liberty, and give him Death."


Seriously, Chandos - I don't mean to offend you, or anyone. It just perplexes me that, after millennia of trampling women's rights, the best example of progress men can show after thousands of years is...the right of women to kill their offspring. That death should be the best we can offer women is the real disgrace.

 

That is the problem with the entire issue of abortion. It is perhaps the most divisive of issues. It comes down to deciding between the process of birth, or the right of the woman to have the right to Liberty and the pursuit of her happiness, but in the INSTANCES that we are concerned with here. Remember that we are dealing with the issue of a rape. That is what set off my reaction. I am on record as being opposed to the notion of abortion on demand.

Look at the solution on the previous post; the one where the woman is to breed, so that another couple can have a baby. What else could one call it other than "for breeding?" At least have the honesty to call it what it is.

Yes, but the mother has the same intrinsic value also. That you would ask her to carry the baby of someone who raped her, is to ignore her value as not only a human, but a victim as well. The argument has been put forth that the baby should not suffer because the sins of the father. But the mother should not bear the sins of the father her entire life also. So, how does one choose? If I am understanding you, then the mother becomes the "slave" as well as the victim. Thus, you have deprived her of Liberty and the pursuit of happiness completely. You have not resolved this issue in any way that I can see.

Yes, but he never gave up his Roman citizenship. As for women staying single: There was once a strange Christian cult - the Shakers - they believed the same thing, (perhaps they took St Paul seriously) that women should not engage with men. Guess what there aren't anymore of?

Rationalizing can be a helpful thing sometimes...
I notice that the unborn baby, who is caught in the crossfire between the mother's rights and a rapist father gets speical rights that others (Iraqi children for instance) don't get when they get caught in the "crossfire."

No, but they can become a slave to a society that has no respect for their rights as individuals. Notice that I already defended the istitution of marriage, so again, I think this is a bit of rationalizing here. I was refering to the Church or the State forcing women to have children under the worst of circumstances.

But again, I pointed out that it was a male dominated society. You quickly put forth that the judges who decided that case were all men. Thank you for proving my point so clearly. And there have been how many women justices on the Supreme Court in the last 225 years? If you guessed more than 2, you loose.

 

Pro choice, not necessarily pro abortion. A woman should at all times have a choice wheter or not she's ready to give birth and go through the entire process or call the whole thing off.

 

A woman should first have decided if she is ready to have sex and possibly face the result, which is pregnancy.

I know the Declaration. I've also spent some time with the bigger picture - from the point of view of American colonies (which actually inherited from Locke and Hume, anyway) that later became the United States, and from the European point of view of Lafayette's French version and its evolution in French constitutionalism.

What I understand from all it is that Life is the first and supreme right and the highest value. It's also always mentioned in the first place, before all others.

Next, the purpose of calling upon human rights (rights per se don't have a purpose, they simply are) is that the stronger can't abuse their position and power over the weaker, especially if the stronger one's interest is of lower rank than the weaker one's right. For instance, a monarch can't prosecute people who criticise his policy, a land owner can't force people into serfdom and so on.

Following from these same noble principles, a woman can't deprive her child of life in order that her life of partying, having fun and carefree sex can continue.

Having children is a natural consequence of having sex, and a natural function of a human organism. Therefore, raising children is not comparable to slavery. No more than being a child subject to parental authority is. At most it could be compared to mutual slavery, a bit like in marriage.

Consequently, it's not a violation of the right to freedom per se.

The problem comes down to a certain discomfort associated with having to pay for your own decisions or, in some fraction of a percent of cases (rape pregnancy), having ro raise a child you didn't want to have and couldn't do anything about that.

The right to life is a right of higher rank than the right to comfort and convenience.

Equality that you invoke, would necessitate the equal treating of the rights of the woman and the child. Therefore, equality would even increase the need to protect the child's right to life over a lower-ranking right of the woman to comfort.

That is what I, as a Catholic, firmly support.

Those rights are either given from God or derived from the natural order that God has set.

Therefore, it is not up to human legislators to change them.

Therefore, it is not up to human legislators to allow the killing of the child in the name of the woman's comfort and convenience.

And what the Pope says is that life is to be protected.

The idea of state is that interests and rights of citizens collide and therefore a form of government is needed to set priorities and enforce them as needed. In this sense, the state has every right to reduce colliding rights in proportion, to forgo the lower ranking rights that collide with higher ranking ones, or to set a more specific modus operandi.

The mother has no right to violate the child's right to life. Therefore, it's the duty of the state, the society and even fellow humans to intercept and prevent the crime.

And to allow her to take the child's life is to ignore the child's basic and foremost rigt to life, ignoring him totally as a subject of human rights.

It also violates equality, as it places an elusive right of one person to comfort or convenience, more or less loosely inferred from the rights to liberty and pursue of happiness, over the explicit and highest ranking right to life of another person.

A breach of the right to life includes in itself a violation of the right to liberty as well (you can't take someone's life without taking his liberty), so the liberty of the mother is visibly ranked higher than the child's analogous right by pro-abortionists.

Under no condition should any punitive means be taken against an innocent person. There is no justification whatsoever.

As a result, we have to put the rapist father aside and weight the interests of the mother and the child against each other. The life of the mother isn't in danger. Ergo, the life of the child is to be taken by the mother in no danger to her own life. As the right to life is superior to the right to implicit right to comfort and convenience (the explicit right to happiness isn't there to protect you from yourself and your actions), therefore the child's right must prevail. Therefore, the child is not to be killed.

Actually, the primary addressee of Paul is the male population. He who has a wife should keep her, but he who has no wife had better not seek one. This, naturally, applies to women as well, but as women aren't the primary target but men are, Paul's teachings can't be construed as restrictive towards women in this respect.

Paul didn't try to enforce chastity and celibacy on all the faithful: Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. (1 Cor 7, 2-3)

Those who are married are under no condition to divorce and remarry, therefore a sect that dissolves marriages is in violation of Paul's command:

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. (1 Cor 7, 10-12)

In 1 Cor 7, 27-28, Paul suggests it's better not to seek a wife if you have none: Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

But that's not a command, as Paul mentions before in 1 Cor 7, 7-9:

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

As I explain it, it's better to marry than to burn, but it's better not to seek a wife or a husband actively in order just to have one, if it can be avoided.

The quotes are from King James Bible, so it's definitely not a Catholic plot of yours truly

 

Chev, situations can drastically change. A woman could have planned to get pregnant, and due to whatever circomstances, the relationship could end out of the blue. The man walks away from his pregnant ex, so she faces a future of being a single mother. Those are situations in which a woman should have the right to reconsider. Perfectly normal imho.

And that's just one example, there are many other situations that could shed a total different light things.

 

This is one of the VERY few points that I agree with conservatives, as I am against abortion, except if it is incest and/or rape. You did it, you take the consequences.

 

There are only three reasons I could accept abortion:

1) (woman's choice) If conceived during rape.

2) (woman's choice) If pregnancy endangers the woman's life.

3) (both man and woman's choice) If conceived under circumstances that are normal, eg... Man meets woman, they get 'funky', she gets pregnant!

In this case, she should have to go through the term and the father should be, if not morally, then legally bound to be with that woman at least until delivery, and the child can be given up for adoption or any other more accepted means OTHER than abortion! (you play, you pay!!!)

Also, discussing with the father(provided he is a worthy father who is not the 'dead-beat' type) is absolutely a necessity!

As a potential father myself, if a woman is with me, does not tell me she is carrying my child, and aborts it, that would be unforgiveable to me, and have reprecussions if she will murder our child, for any reason that is not 1 or 2 above and not even give me say in the childs life.

It may be her body, but the child is also a part of the father's life as well, a part of his essence is in the child, and he should have equal say in the child's life provided he is going to take responsibility for his actions as well, otherwise, I could, reluctantly see aborting as an option in this instance too.

(This is my opinion in the matter, not intended to offend anyone )

 

By surviving, I meant living autonomously, i.e. sustaining itself with its own metabolism and respiration. Ergo, you didn't address my point.

 

What about people who need artificial devices in their organisms to survive, or transplants?

This only shows how inconvenient for the woman the child would be. I've addressed the hierarchy of rights above, and I'm not going to repeat myself.

No, those examples can only show how people are ready to commit murder and declare it morally right if it is convenient for them.

Imagine you're an heir to the throne. Is it all right to have the current king killed because you'd be a better ruler?

Or, you really, really deserve promotion. Your boss is totally useless, but knows the right people. There's no other way than to arrange "an accident", incapacitating him?

Or, there could be that old Balzac's example: an old mean man who never shares his money. Is it all right to kill him and give his money to the poor?

You can multiply examples like above in geometric progress, but it doesn't change the two basic facts: that it's calculation based on convenience and that you have to assume the role of the lord of someone's life and death to make the decision.

[ June 03, 2004, 21:35: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I'm not going to challenge you to take this conversation to the next level, although i wouldn't really mind. It's just that we already went down that road several times. I'm from the Netherlands, where something as an abortion is at least negotiable. The rest of Europe hasn't arrived at that station yet, but it shouldn't be long anymore.

If we can't even come together over simple matters like this, then by all means, let's go back to how it was 10 years ago.

 

In the opinion of most Americans that would not be the big picture, but the dinky one. There is a good reason why the shots fired at Lexington and Concord were "heard around the world." The Revolution changed the politcial dynamics of Western Europe completely. But this is not the point of this dialogue, but the Declaration of Independence itself. To the main point it would have been helpful if you had actually bothered to read my posts on this subject.

The words: "Give me Liberty or give me Death," should have been a big tip-off that Life without Liberty has little meaning. But then perhaps this is largley an Amercian perspective. In that case, the weight of argument is on the side of Liberty anyway, since the Declaration is an American document, written by an American, for Americans. And its intention was to start a revolution, which indeed it did.

That may be your opinion but it was not the opinion of the Founders, and those of the Revolutionary generation; many of whom went to their deaths for the right to have Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I find it odd that you keep thinking of "the woman" as the one doing the "partying" here. As if she is "partying" by herself. I notice that your rants never include a male partner. How odd.

But I'm not sure if that's what the Founding Brothers had in mind anyway. I'm sure their thoughts were largely political rather than the "right to party." You may want to consider the Beasty Boys on the "right to party" thing. But again, I thought this was supposed to be a serious dialogue.

Thank you for stating the obvious.
But here's the punch line:

Have you been watching "Married with Children?" Somehow we have gone from Jefferson's view of the Rights of Man, to Al Bundy's view of marriage and its lack of "freedom."

Do you mean having sex? or being married? Or maybe both.

Or being the victim of a crime.

Did you mean to say the right to Liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Not in the case of abortion. Perhaps in Poland, but not here. In 40 years since Roe v. Wade, the State has not done any such thing. Probably because of the Declartion. Some of our government leaders have acutally read it, and as importantly, believe it.

Did you mean the rape? since abortion is not a "crime" here.

Perhaps you missed the "all men are created equal" part of this dialogue. See Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson for a fuller definition of "rights." Ah, but you may thought they meant only "men."

Except the woman of course. Her lack of innocence appears to be her gender in your world.

So the rapist and baby's liberty is ranked higher than that of woman's by anti-abortionists?

Surprise!

Have you been spending time with Arnold?

Yes, there would not have been anymore "faithful" after a generation or two.

No, now she only has a constant reminder of the dishonor and crime committed against her. And now not only has she been brutally raped, but now she gets to raise the child and create a family with the rapist. Not only that, but she may already have a family and husband. So now the entire family, including the mother's babies, which she actually chose to have, is now poisioned by the criminal. How noble of you.

Does he mean like a box of Lego blocks?

I was wondering where DR. Phil got that from.

Who said that? Everyone wants that, even some women. Hard to believe I guess - that women may want to actually make their own decisions about their own lives. Could it be about the pursuit of happiness? Or Liberty? Or about the right to Life? A life of one's own choosing, we all hope. Anything else is called Tyranny.

[ June 04, 2004, 06:52: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I just wanted to say that I agree with Moxy here. Grey Magistrate, you are my hero.

 

Chandos the Red, your post disappoints me. You used to apply more logic in the framing of the previous ones. And far less emotion as well as far more objectivism.

I do not actually bother to trace your posting history. No offence, but you're not important enough for me to bother this much about your writing. If you ever become a celebrated political writer, drop me a line and I'll buy a book or two. Until then, let's hold back on it.

I am not sure if you're aware of this, but there's a place known as "the rest of the world" and the abortion issue isn't limited to America. Neither is "the rest of the world" really feeling bound by American documents.

You're also twisting the intentions of the Founding Fathers to suit your current agenda. I'm surprised that you haven't made them devout pro-abortionists as of yet.

The Founding Fathers, first of all, were not the guys who faced English bayonets. Next, those guys who actually did, weren't doing it with your pro-abortionist agenda in mind, as it were.

Your persistence in swaying the subject impresses me. However, what seems to escape you is that a male is physically unable to have an abortion on the basis of the fact that males aren't supposed to become pregnant.

Therefore, I could technically add "the same would apply to males if males were able to get pregnant", but I think the majority of people is smart enough to understand this without a special notice.

I am dead serious when it comes to life.

The right to party, feel comfortable and have the consequences of your actions removed from your life is some vaguely implicit right that you seem to infer from the right to liberty and pursue of happiness, at which point I move in to stop that.

I don't know if Paul was a fan of Al Bundy, but he said in 1 Cor 7, 3:

"The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife."

Having power of someone's body is the core of owning, as you own a slave. In this sense, spouses belong to each other and serve each other.

If you prefer some Contract for Exclusive Sex and Shared Tax Breaks, have it your way.

Surprising as it may be to you, I mean that having children as a result of having sex is not a violation of someone's civil rights. It's nature. (Naturally, if men were able to get pregnant, this would apply to men as well.)

Are you also going to sue nature for infringing on your right to liberty if you fall ill and can't leave your house?

"Or being victim of a crime" is included in "having ro raise a child you didn't want to have and couldn't do anything about that"

If a woman becomes pregnant (which would also apply to a man if men were able to become pregnant) as a result of rape, we can safely assume that she doesn't want to have that child. By definition of rape, she couldn't do anything about being raped. Ergo: being victim of rape and becoming pregnant is, basically, "having ro raise a child you didn't want to have and couldn't do anything about that".

Please apply some logical thinking next time. It will cut a paragraph or ten off my posts making everyone happy.

No, I meant a generic right to feeling comfortable and having things arranged in a way convenient for you, removing the results of your actions from your way. That's the vaguely implicit right that you infer from the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Essentially, what I wrote there is the very base of law doctrine regarding conflicts of rights.

If there are two incompatible rights, one must be given precedence. The other way is to reduce both rights to such a level as to make them compatible with one another.

Let's take John and Frank. John feels bad about his neighbour Frank living yonder and arrives at the conclusion that the very existence of Frank violates his (John's) right to pursue of happiness. Therefore, he grabs his shotgun and shoots Frank's head off in order to secure his happiness.

The court, however, will probably give precedence to Frank's right to Life over John's pursue of happiness.

If the state were not to intervene in this case of colliding rights, the court would have to pat John on his shoulder and say "yeah, bro, you were in your right, hope your right to pursue of happiness won't be violated like this".

Next, you could have a divorced couple, let's say... Jake and Elsie, who have a son. They won't live with one another, but they both have a right to have children!

So what does the state do? Allow them to fist-fight for the custody or something? No. The court chooses the custodian and gives the other parent the right to visit the kid (precedence of rights). Or both get custody but the kid spends half the year with one and the other half with the other parent (proportional reduction of rights).

So far as I know, the US courts aren't an exception here and thus the US state, as well as any other state, reduces people's conflicting rights in proportion and gives some rights precedence over other rights instead of letting the citizens solve it on their own. Like duel or something.

If you prefer the state to allow the citizens to solve conflicts on their own, perhaps you should move to a clan society, or some no-man's land? Don't forget to sharpen your duelling axe.

Maybe not in the legal sense as the law is interpreted as of now. However, crime has a broader sense than a type of criminal offence under law.

Murder is crime, legal or not. Abortion is murder. Therefore, abortion is crime. You may disagree with me, but you can't deny my views some inherent sense

If all men are created equal, is the mother more equal than the child?

I don't understand why and how you can claim that equality means that the mother's rights (which would also apply to fathers if fathers wee able to get pregnant) are more important than the baby's rights. I would rather think that equality means that the mother's rights are as good as the child's rights. But I'm not American, and I don't even live there, so what do I know a damn about equality.

Now that was heavy. I understand your eagerness to win in this debate and prove me wrong, but making me look retarded and mentally living in the stone age isn't really the way. Plus, it's not like you're going to succeed in it, anyway.

Having a child as a result of having sex is no more punitive than aging and dying when you get old enough. Is God inflicting undeserved capital penalty on you when you get 95 years old and die in your bed?

However, aborting the child BECAUSE his father raped the mother is punishing the child in place of the father. Your reasoning looks like this:

The child was conceived during rape, AND rape is a crime. A crime deserves punishment, THEREFORE the child should pay for it with his life.

No matter who has actually done it, someone has to pay for the crime

In civilised countries, beginning with ancient republican Rome, there's a rule that says nullum crimen sine lege, no crime without a law, "a law" meaning a parliament bill or corresponding act. Soon it was followed by nulla poena sine lege, ie no punishment without a law. Therefore, no punishment to someone who hasn't broken any law.

What law has the rapist's child broken? Yeah, tell me. What crime did the baby commit?

As for your accusation that I hold women responsible for rapes committed on them etc etc, disregarding the fact that it's completely illogical rubbish intended to present me as a troglodite, I remind you that I've already devoted a paragraph to rapists who in my oh so humble opinion deserve castration.

The rapist's liberty is of no consequence here. You only mention it to create an opposition of an innocent and unjustly oppressed rape victim and an evil rapist and use it to support your argument.

However, whether to abort a rapist's child or not is between the mother (or the father, should he be able to get pregnant) and the child. I have already said that the rapist (or his family) should cover all costs and even take the child completely on himself (themselves) should the victim demand this.

No, but I have been spending time with people who don't understand that if a sentence about seeking a wife if you had none is applied "to women as well", it means seeking a husband if a woman has none.

Why you have made the effort of searching through the archives for my other posts on seeking a spouse is beyond me. Are you really so huge a fan of my writing? I feel honoured.

And yes, I believe seeking a spouse for the sake of having one is a very bad idea and leads to problems. It's better to marry the right candidate if and when you meet one.

But if you prefer to get married ASAP with no matter whom, have it your way.

I have already said that the rapist and/or his family should cover all costs and even take the child over completely if the rape victim demands this.

And the criminal is the baby, right?

Or criminal offspring or some such? Thus deserving only death?

As my father used to say, undeserved harm doesn't make dishonour. What makes dishonour is compromising your honour by acting against it. Like killing innocents. Or inflicting revenge on the offender's family.

Even though rape requires brutality to enaact, there's a difference between rape and brutal rape and not all rape counts as brutal rape. Don't add more emotions than it's needed. Cool and calm deliberation better serves debate and arguments than a boiling brain.

Paul surely had Lego blocks on his mind. Paul also owned a jet plane, drank Guinness and played on Antiochian stock market. Rumour has it, he worked for the CIA as well. Or was it Al-Quaeda.

Yeah, that reassures me I'm doing my job well.

 

Would you rather see the woman give birth to an unwanted child ? You know how that story goes, don't you ? Aren't there enough orphanages already ? If a phoetus has loving parents to look forward to, he'll have a pretty good life and a safe environment to grow up in. If that's not the case, it's better off not being born at all. There's way too many of those unwanted kids outthere as it is. I know a few, and they all have a bitter view on life as a whole, have no optimistic feelings about the future, and develop criminal behaviour faster than "normal" kids. If i were to grow up under such circumstances, i'd rather would have seen my mother go with an abortion 38 years ago.

 

How the hell can you think a rapist would make a suitable parent? Or his family, for that matter. "Here, take this kid your family member conceived when he had his fun and care for him/her well".

As for "God-given rights", the rights we have are given by society. Our laws and values aren't dictated by what a fictitious spook in the sky said.

 

Children orphaned by living parents are a sad occurence. So is poverty. Even more so is a raped woman - a sight that makes the blood of every real man boil. However, such sad circumstances don't give us the right to kill a human being. Neither can we judge the value of a person basing on circumstances of his conception (rape, incest, adultery, one night stand, you name it), economic status or innate disability. We don't have any right to deem a person unworthy of living. Our own hardship doesn't give us the right to do harm to other humans in order to alleviate our suffering, either.

Not inflicting my judgement on mothers who for various reasons decide to abort their children, I can't in clear conscience stand still while the act is taking place. As a Christian, I believe God will judge them, as He will judge fathers who participated in creating the situation, among those rapists, adulterers, men who abandon the mothers of their children. Each of those bears a level of guilt according to his awareness and the harm done. As a moral person, having a specific philosophy, I believe that those person's conscience will mete out a punishment even in this life; they will be the judges of themselves, as will be mothers who abort their children.

Even given that actions will be judged and justice will be served, harmful acts can't be let happen; they must be prevented in so far as it is possible. There are various levels of guilt and association and non-action belong to those. In clear conscience, a moral being can neither allow nor ignore evil if anything can be done. Despite trials of life, despite hardship.

Therefore, the men (males) involved in the conception should face the consequences of their actions, the society should render aid to the mothers in difficult circumstances as well, the families and local communities should provide support. The killing of the unborn child can't be let happen, though.

 

I should like to point out that 53% of the world's population worships the "fictitious spook in the sky," (in one form or another) and that the US. Constitution (And quite a few others) is based upon things that he is quoted as saying. Even the money we pay in our shopping centers and at our grocers has "in God we trust" stamped on it. Our entire society was founded on religious principles.

Oh, by the way, abortion is mean. Don't do it.

 

Suppose we take a step back and consider a different analogy.

I think we're all agreed that:

1) Abortion kills a human being.
2) Access to abortion increases women's liberty and happiness.
3) Some births are wanted, others unwanted; free abortion is an excellent means to end an unwanted pregnancy.

The first is scientifically undeniable; the second and third are sociologically demonstrable. The pro-life position incurs serious costs on women's freedom to live their lives as they wish. (Not that this is necessarily a bad thing - marriage, for instance, incurs serious costs on men's freedom to sleep around - but it IS a cost.)

So let's consider two scenarios.

First scenario: a civil war breaks out in Canada. (Hey, it could happen!) Canada bombs Montreal into the ground, and sends thousands of infantry soldiers into the rebellious province to kill, loot, extort, and more to intimidate the population into submission. Terrified, hundreds of thousands of Quebecois refugees flee to the American border.

The US Border Patrol, in response, sets up machine guns at the border and mows them down.

Did the US ask for war refugees? No. (Though one tactless commentator notes that, "Hey, America looks so darn attractive, it was ASKING to be fled to!") Is the US responsible for the evil that created the refugees? No. Would accepting these refugees cost the US enormous sums that could have been spent on American education, health care, and deficit reduction? Oh yeah. Would accepting a flood of impoverished refugees distort the identity of the border states struggling to absorb them? Most certainly.

But do these staggering costs, and the US' innocence regarding the refugees' status, justify the (extremely effective) solution of executing the refugees?

Second scenario: you come back from vacation to discover that some idiot has left a stray puppy on your doorstep. Your family has a history of accepting strays, as do many of the families in the neighborhood. It's both accepted and expected. However, you don't want a dog, and can't spare the time and money to care for it. It's not the puppy's fault it was abandoned, but taking in the dog imposes serious costs on your freedom and ambitions.

So, after fruitlessly checking around for other possible owners, you have the puppy put to sleep.

Is this wrong? No. It's unfortunate for the puppy, and it's unpleasant to be put in such a situation. You may get some nasty looks from others in the neighborhood. But you are fully within your moral rights to have the dog killed.

What's the main difference between the two scenarios? Humanity. Animals may be loved, but they are expendable; humans may be unloved, but they are never expendable.

We don't have to argue about the huge costs that nature imposes on women because we ALREADY AGREE that women are burdened by childbearing. Raising just one kid to adulthood saps two decades from a woman's life. Two decades! - and those are the decades when the woman is youngest and strongest, and when male competitors are scaling the corporate ladder. And it doesn't help when the majority of men are faithless, deceptive drifters who think of themselves as "breeders" rather than "fathers".

Granted, some people - religious types, mostly - argue that motherhood is honorable, that having children is a good thing, and that women may be truly fulfilled in raising children, even in a difficult environment. Most would counter, however, that although they're grateful for their OWN mothers' sacrifices, our generation has finally realized (after thousands of unenlightened years) that Dr. Henry Higgins was right: The best way to be a woman is to act like a man. That requires giving women the same right to betray their kids as men have "enjoyed" for millennia.

Call me unenlightened, but women deserve better than that.

 

Well, against my better judgement, I'm going to jump in here again.

Nope, I have to disagree with you there. From my original post:

Now, where to draw the line is another matter, but to me, if an abortion is done "early enough" (whatever that means), you aren't taking a human life. Whether "early enough" is 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 16 weeks, or something else, doesn't change the basic premise in my opinion.

Edit: Wow! 3 posts basically at the same time saying basically the same thing.
But I was first.