Bush Declares National Sanctity of Life Day

[Cyclotron]

With reference to your main point, Obiwan:

Is Bush right to defend the sancitity of life?

He is, but he is not right to strip women of the sanctity of their rights to do it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Demerzel
A woman who is forcedly reminded of that act every single day for 9 months is being tortured. She can't excise the psychological trauma if she has to face it every day.

For 9 months? Don't you mean for the rest of her life? I wouldn't wish that burden on anyone.

[Willem]

Obiwan:

A true life story. I got a woman pregnant, she had an abortion without informing me about it. And I'm really, really glad she did. She was an alchoholic that I had only known for a short period of time. Had she decided to bear the child to term, I would have been tied to a person I didn't like for the rest of my life. I might even have had to battle her for custody at some point. I would have been miserable, the mother would have been miserable, and the child would have been miserable.

It's really nice to look at the issue in terms of black and white, but that's not how life works.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Willem
Obiwan:

A true life story. I got a woman pregnant, she had an abortion without informing me about it. And I'm really, really glad she did. She was an alchoholic that I had only known for a short period of time. Had she decided to bear the child to term, I would have been tied to a person I didn't like for the rest of my life. I might even have had to battle her for custody at some point. I would have been miserable, the mother would have been miserable, and the child would have been miserable.

It's really nice to look at the issue in terms of black and white, but that's not how life works.

So was she drunk when you got her pregnant? That would have been a real smooooth move. Maybe you should exercise some self control over your choice of sexual partner, like maybe confining yourself to people who are competent to make the decision to have sex with you.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


So was she drunk when you got her pregnant? That would have been a real smooooth move. Maybe you should exercise some self control over your choice of sexual partner, like maybe confining yourself to people who are competent to make the decision to have sex with you.

And who are you to pass judgement on a situation you know nothing about?

I just so happened that we had been living together for awhile. It's not like I got some hosebag drunk one night and did my thing. I didn't realize she was an alcoholic until we had been together for awhile. When I did, I moved out. And I didn't find out about the abortion until later.

And no, I never had sex with her when she was drunk. I found her rather disgusting when she was like that. That's why I left.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned


So now, Sava, you spit on the religious? I find it interesting that you single out for hate people of high morality that seek to protect life and Liberty, while complementing the cruel, the barbarous and the torturers. I see you have a fundamental grasp of right and wrong.

I have a problem with Bush enacting his religious agenda through government. I don't spit on religions, as I've said numerous times (although you fail to read so I ask myself why bother repeating it...) I don't care what people believe. I am a tolerant person. But keep religion and this whole self-righteous attitude out of government. Religion already had its chance at ruling governments, it was called the Dark Ages. No thanks.

Drop the stereotype that you have of me Ned, you seem to like to pick and choose the things I say and then spin it to suit your own preconception of me or liberals or whatever.

If you think Bush is of high morality than you have more problems than I thought

[Sava]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


So was she drunk when you got her pregnant? That would have been a real smooooth move. Maybe you should exercise some self control over your choice of sexual partner, like maybe confining yourself to people who are competent to make the decision to have sex with you.

Maybe you should not tell him how to live his life and pass judgement on him and instead educate people and tell them to use contraception. but it's much easier to sit on a pedestal and judge, right?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sava


Maybe you should not tell him how to live his life and pass judgement on him and instead educate people and tell them to use contraception. but it's much easier to sit on a pedestal and judge, right?

Why thank you!

The moral of the story is that accidents happen, mistakes are made, and people make poor judgements. But a child shouldn't be forced to endure a miserable life just because the parents screw up at some point. And there are times, like in my case, that bringing a child into the world would only make things worse for everyone involved.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava

I have a problem with Bush enacting his religious agenda through government. I don't spit on religions, as I've said numerous times (although you fail to read so I ask myself why bother repeating it...) I don't care what people believe. I am a tolerant person. But keep religion and this whole self-righteous attitude out of government. Religion already had its chance at ruling governments, it was called the Dark Ages. No thanks.

Drop the stereotype that you have of me Ned, you seem to like to pick and choose the things I say and then spin it to suit your own preconception of me or liberals or whatever.

If you think Bush is of high morality than you have more problems than I thought

I agree with you at times. Like this post. I fully agree that there should be separation of church and state. I do not believe, however, that Bush has used the power of government to enforce any religion on anyone. He is using, rather, the power of pursuation.

Of course Bush is a moral man. Almost excessively so.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Ned
Of course Bush is a moral man. Almost excessively so.

As excessive as water during a draught. I hope you being sarcastic. I doubt it though.

[Proteus_MST]

And even nowadays there are examples of the problems vou get if religion gets involved into the state, for example the islamic states like Iran (although it is getting better, since Khomeini passed away) or Afghanistan under the Rule of the Taliban (although there still is a lot of work to do, because most of the country is still ruled by local warlords without great Influence from Karzai).

Now for Sex with contraceptives:
Who is responsible if you take contraceptives like condoms or the pill while having sex but they fail?
Who is in this case responsible for the child?
By taking contraceptives you have made it clear that you don´t want a child.
Should the Company who manufactured the Contraceptive held responsible for the child?
It would be only fair.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Now for Jack.

"From the woman's perspective, having an abortion after rape is like being cut free of the wreckage after a car crash."

"It is "immoral" to cut them free, even if they had been wearing a seatbelt, as this would absolve them from the consequences of the risk they accepted."

"to FORCE a woman to carry a hated parasite"

Your example assumes that the unborn are not persons, the point being debated. Why do we cut wreckage? Because wreckage is just metal. Abortion is only immoral if another person is involved.

I specified "from the woman's perspective". You are leaving her to suffer for nine months.

I do not accept that the fetus is a person. But from the woman's perspective, this is irrelevant. We are talking about the torture of women here (specifically, rape victims).

"These need to be offset against the danger of death during childbirth."

Waited for this point. Couple things.
Just because childbirth may kill me, am I justified in killing someone else to ensure my safety? The unborn child has nowhere else to go.

I was responding to your argument that abortion is life-threatening for the mother. So is childbirth. In both cases, the risk of death is very small.

However, in the case of rape victims forced to undergo torture (pregnancy), the risks are very much higher: they include the risk of death in a backstreet abortion and the risk of suicide.

And I stand by my earlier remark about politicians. I think a rape victim would have a legal right to assassinate the Attorney-General and the President of the United States if they were seeking to make abortion illegal. How could she be successfully prosecuted for this? She would be exercising her legal right to use deadly force to defend herself from torture.

It would certainly be an interesting case!

[Ben Kenobi]

In random order.

Jack

"We are talking about the torture of women here (specifically, rape victims)."

What about the torture of the unborn child? Are they not hacked to pieces with such brutality and pain, that some abortion doctors recommend anaestetics?

"However, in the case of rape victims forced to undergo torture (pregnancy), the risks are very much higher: they include the risk of death in a backstreet abortion and the risk of suicide."

Just because some people die robbing banks, should we make it safer for bank robbers? Until you show why abortion is a moral decision, the backstreet abortion trope has no force.

Suicide risk is also present after abortion as well as after pregnancy. Should we recommend that a woman have an abortion, if she might kill herself afterwards?
This is why proper rape counselling is so important. We don't just ship her off to a clinic and be done with it.

"She would be exercising her legal right to use deadly force to defend herself from torture."

Who is responsible for raping her? The president? The unborn child? Punish those responsible, not innocent bystanders.

Proteus:

"Should the Company who manufactured the Contraceptive held responsible for the child?"

Contraceptives have an inherent risk of failure. Why should the company be responsible if they alert their customers that contraceptive failure is possible?

Even so, you would have to prove in a court of law that you used the contraceptive properly. Perhaps a video?


By having sex, you have announced your responsibility to take care of the child. That's why we have paternity tests, and child support laws.

Willem-

"The moral of the story is that accidents happen, mistakes are made, and people make poor judgements."

Mistakes have consequences. Why should the unborn child have to be punished because of your mistake? Why is he the one to die, just because his life makes things difficult?

"Had she decided to bear the child to term, I would have been tied to a person I didn't like for the rest of my life."

Then why sleep with her in the first place? Could you have waited until you knew her a little better?

"For 9 months? Don't you mean for the rest of her life?"

Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion. If the mother who has been raped does not want to raise her child, she should give him up for adoption, and find a family that will be able to take care of the child.

cyclotron-

Some good points here:

"The right to life only protects a person from being needlessly killed."

Please define need. In what sense can someone need to be killed? How does this apply to the unborn child?

"I have a right to life, but in that case it does not supercede the right of those people to their property."

Is the unborn child the property of the mother? Or the father? What about infants? Are they also the property of parents, why or why not?

"Forcing somebody to take care of a child and then charging that person with negligence when the child dies sounds an awful lot like slavery."

In what sense must they take care of the child? Again, adoption should be available. The problem for the first nine months is that the child cannot survive outside the womb, yet the mother, in the case of rape is not responsible for her position.

It only makes sense to save the child if the right to life is the primary right, surpassing property. The reasoning behind this is that in order to exercise any other right, liberty, etc. one must live. Take away the right to life, and you take away all the others.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
cyclotron-

Some good points here:

Please define need. In what sense can someone need to be killed? How does this apply to the unborn child?

I suppose a better definition would be the right to not be killed unjustly. However you define the right to life, however, I think it can be generally agreed that the right does not give us a right to never be killed or die under any circumstances. What I mean is that our right to life does not extend to all circumstances, and more importantly it does not entitle us to anything we want to stay alive.

Is the unborn child the property of the mother? Or the father? What about infants? Are they also the property of parents, why or why not?

If babies were property, than it would be the perogative of the mother to sell/destroy/abuse the child in any way she wants. That, however, is not the case. The child is not property, but the woman's body is the property of the woman. Thus, when I say that the right to live does not supercede another's right to their property, I mean that the child's right to life does not automatically entitle it (at least in the case of rape) to the body/property of another, in this case the mother.

In what sense must they take care of the child? Again, adoption should be available. The problem for the first nine months is that the child cannot survive outside the womb, yet the mother, in the case of rape is not responsible for her position.

First off, the nine months is an obligation on the part of the mother. The length of the obligation or the amount of hardship endured is irrelevant to the fact that pregnancy is an obligation. The problem with prohibiting abortion in case of rape is simply that you are giving the mother an obligation without her consent.

The mother simply does not have responsibility for the fetus if the fetus was forced upon her. When arguing against abortion, normally abortion foes say that it was the woman's choice to get pregnant, so she must live with the consequences of that choice. To say that the woman must live with the consequences even when she has not made the choice to do so is morally wrong.

It only makes sense to save the child if the right to life is the primary right, surpassing property. The reasoning behind this is that in order to exercise any other right, liberty, etc. one must live. Take away the right to life, and you take away all the others.

The right to life only supercedes the right to property of the same person. My right to life, however, does not trump another person's right to their property.

I have done my best to respond directly to your points. Could you address the examples I have brought up? I would seriously like to hear whether you believe that my right to life gives me the authority to use any and all of your resources to keep me alive. And not what you would do, but what you think the legal and moral obligation of every man is to do in such a situation.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by obiwan18
In random order.

Jack

"We are talking about the torture of women here (specifically, rape victims)."

What about the torture of the unborn child? Are they not hacked to pieces with such brutality and pain, that some abortion doctors recommend anaestetics?

For the Embryo to feel pain it has to have developed Nociceptors and at least some of the pathways necessary to process the pain signals, which are for example the spinoreticular, spinothalamic, spinomesencephalic and spinocervical tracts which project to the Thalamus and parts of the somatosensory Cortex.

Without ast least some of those pathways with established Synapses existent I really doubt, that the embryo really feels any pain during abortion.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Proteus:

"Should the Company who manufactured the Contraceptive held responsible for the child?"

Contraceptives have an inherent risk of failure. Why should the company be responsible if they alert their customers that contraceptive failure is possible?

Even so, you would have to prove in a court of law that you used the contraceptive properly. Perhaps a video?

A lot of couples make videos of their sexual intercourses

Originally posted by obiwan18

By having sex, you have announced your responsibility to take care of the child. That's why we have paternity tests, and child support laws.

That´s the question.
I think, by taking contraceptives you make it clear, that you really don´t want to take care of a child.
And if an "accident" happens it is normally the woman who does suffer, not we as males. We won´t be the ones who have a constantly expanding belly and we won´t be the ones who feel sick and clumsy (and normally have to stop working at a certain point of the pregnancy).
And we can also take the easy way if we don´t want to be together with the woman with which the accient happened by just paying alimonys (und thus calming our scruples) whereas the woman (without abortion) would have to bear the child at least 9 months regardless if wether she wants the child or not.