Bush Declares National Sanctity of Life Day

[Ben Kenobi]

"A lot of couples make videos of their sexual intercourses."

Proteus, but the question is would you show it to the judge?

"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."

However, if you are proved to be the parent, it no longer matters whether you want to take care of them or not, you still have to pay child support. The solution? Try not to have 'accidents' until you know you both want to have kids.

Abortion works best for the man at the expense of the woman. The woman faces the risks of sterility and complications, will not receive future compensation in the form of child support, as she would if she carried the child to term. The man faces no risks at all.

As for fetal pain receptors:

"Data in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, gave solid confirmation of such pain. It is known that the fetal umbilical cord has no pain receptors such as the rest of the fetal body. Accordingly, they tested fetal hormone stress response comparing puncturing of the abdomen and of the cord.

They observed "the fetus reacts to intrahepatic (liver) needling with vigorous body and breathing movements, but not to cord needling. The levels of these hormones did not vary with fetal age." M. Fisk, et al., Fetal Plasma Cortisol and B-endorphin Response to Intrauterine Needling, Lancet, Vol. 344, July 9, 1994, Pg. 77 "

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by obiwan18

As for fetal pain receptors:

"Data in the British Medical Journal, Lancet, gave solid confirmation of such pain. It is known that the fetal umbilical cord has no pain receptors such as the rest of the fetal body. Accordingly, they tested fetal hormone stress response comparing puncturing of the abdomen and of the cord.

They observed "the fetus reacts to intrahepatic (liver) needling with vigorous body and breathing movements, but not to cord needling. The levels of these hormones did not vary with fetal age." M. Fisk, et al., Fetal Plasma Cortisol and B-endorphin Response to Intrauterine Needling, Lancet, Vol. 344, July 9, 1994, Pg. 77 "

As it clearly states "fetus" I assume that all tests were made on fetuses (i.e. Week 8+ of pregnancy) and none on Embryos (before week 8).
Am I correct on this one?

[Sava]

obiwan, use the QUOTE function so your posts are easier to read... thank you...

[Ben Kenobi]

Cyclotron:

"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."

Well, I'll try.

Your examples are another form of Judith Jarvis Thompson's concert violinist, and there are a number of ways to respond to this example.

First is the concept of family morality, whether or not as a family, you have obligations to your parents that you would not have to others, and that you have not consented to. The primary one is the obligation of children to their elders, do children have a filial duty to take care of their parents even though they have not consented to their family? I would say they do, even if the state cannot force such duties. Thomson denies such duties exist.

Secondly, there is tort law in the US, where one person who was a guest for dinner, wanted to stay the night given that there was a blizzard outdoors. The host argued that while he hosted for dinner, he was not required to be a host after dinner. He ended up sending his guest outside, into the snow, in an environment where the fellow was non-viable.

The ruling argued, that the host had a duty to his guest to protect his guest, even at some cost to himself, out of a sense of decency, and respect for persons.

Also, the proper place for an unborn child is in his mother's womb. There is no other place that the child could reside. This is different from the kidney example, or Thompson's violinist. Another person could donate their kidney to the violinist, you cannot be forced to sell your organs even if it means saving another person's life.

Finally, there is a difference between refusal/ denial of service and abortion. Abortion is the active killing of the unborn child, who is dissected and vacuumed out of the womb. Even if the woman cannot be compelled to supply her body, it does not make it right to kill someone outright. It does not give the right for abortion doctors to profit from the service they provide, nor for abortion doctors to kill the child.

The key word in the top statement is any and all of my resources. Pregnancy does not require the use of any or all of one's resources for a nine month period. Like the tort case, I believe that a mother should provide the minimal duty in order to keep the child alive- use of her body for nine months. After that, it's her decision whether to continue to care for her child.

Proteus, do you believe that the unborn child is no different than you are, that you were once in this position? Would you offer the same advice to your mother, even if it meant you would not be here?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Proteus, do you believe that the unborn child is no different than you are, that you were once in this position?

I see an unborn child a diferent from my current self.
Yes, it was the prerequisite to what I or you have become, but on all other aspects, for example consciousness or sensual perceptions I would say that an embryo differs a lot from a born child.
Part of it comes maybe from my study of neurobiology, where I have learned what kind of integration is necessary to process most kind of sensory Informations.
So I think it would be a mistake of seeing an say 4-5 weeks old embryo as something like myself, just smaller.
And therefore I don´t assume, that an embryo experiences any pain during abortion (for a fetus it may be different though, but even in this case I would support abortion if the pregnancy puts the life of the mother at risk)

Originally posted by obiwan18
Would you offer the same advice to your mother, even if it meant you would not be here?

Depends.

If my mother had died during my birth,
because she wasn´t allowed to abort despite the medics knowing, that she would put her own life at risk by bearing me, I certainly sometimes wished I had not been born.

If I had been the product of a rape with my mother being always reminded of the rape by looking at me and if she for example committed suicide during my childhood because of this, maybe I also wished I wouldn´t have born.

I had the Luck to be a wanted child and to be loved by both of my parents so I think it is difficult to say what would have been, if I had been unwanted.
And I think noone would doubt that there are a lot of unwanted children around the world, whose parents just raise them out of duty or religious reasons but not because they love them or wanted them.
It would be interesting to hear how those people answer your question.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmm.. sava. See how this works:

obiwan, use the QUOTE function so your posts are easier to read... thank you...

Didn't know that others found this easier to read.
I apologise if I've caused some eyestrain.

Proteus:

Yes, somewhere between 8-13 weeks.

Cyclotron:

It has been my experience that most religious people see their child as a gift from God. This alters their perceptions, most don't see their children as a burden.

As for me, I've been fortunate to have parents that love me. I don't want other kids to be denied this, even if their parents think otherwise. I agree that it is a real problem for the kids if their parents don't want them.

There are two approaches, one says let's conform the kids to the world by letting the only the wanted kids be born, or the other, let's conform the world to the kids. Is it the fault of the children to not be loved? Are you less of a person because your parents don't love you?

The way I see it, and I've said it here before, life is a continuum from conception onwards. Physically, we change every day, but what makes us people does not.

[Jules]

Well put, obiwan.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Cyclotron:

Well, I'll try.

Your examples are another form of Judith Jarvis Thompson's concert violinist, and there are a number of ways to respond to this example.

Ooh, I'm impressed. Nobody I've talked to knows that but you.

First is the concept of family morality, whether or not as a family, you have obligations to your parents that you would not have to others, and that you have not consented to. The primary one is the obligation of children to their elders, do children have a filial duty to take care of their parents even though they have not consented to their family? I would say they do, even if the state cannot force such duties. Thomson denies such duties exist.

I won't take a stand on whether they exist, but I will argue that they are not relevant. Many people feel they have obligations to their parents, for example, but that is not reflected in our laws or universal concepts of morality. For instance, there are no laws stating that we have an obligation to support our parents. You and I may decide that is the right thing to do, but in the end we both admit it is our decision to do so; we are not obligated to do so except by our own personal concept of responsibility.

Secondly, there is tort law in the US, where one person who was a guest for dinner, wanted to stay the night given that there was a blizzard outdoors. The host argued that while he hosted for dinner, he was not required to be a host after dinner. He ended up sending his guest outside, into the snow, in an environment where the fellow was non-viable.

The ruling argued, that the host had a duty to his guest to protect his guest, even at some cost to himself, out of a sense of decency, and respect for persons.

I would agree completely, and this ecample works well against abortion.

It does not, however, work in the case of abortion after a rape. In your scenario, the host voluntarily admitted the guest, and then told him to leave later; that's like voluntarily becoming pregnant and then having an abortion. If the guest, however, had broken into their house and forced them to feed him, I think the court would have had a different ruling.

Also, the proper place for an unborn child is in his mother's womb. There is no other place that the child could reside. This is different from the kidney example, or Thompson's violinist. Another person could donate their kidney to the violinist, you cannot be forced to sell your organs even if it means saving another person's life.

I don't think there is a difference. Even if the only way the violinist could survive was by my kidneys, if I was the only person who could save him in the entire world, that still does not mean he has a right to my body without my consent. Let's say he needed a kidney transplant, and I was the only person with compatible kidneys in the world (we will assume that a transplant is the only option). I would still be under no obligation whatsoever to relinquish my organs to him.

Finally, there is a difference between refusal/ denial of service and abortion. Abortion is the active killing of the unborn child, who is dissected and vacuumed out of the womb. Even if the woman cannot be compelled to supply her body, it does not make it right to kill someone outright. It does not give the right for abortion doctors to profit from the service they provide, nor for abortion doctors to kill the child.

If I disconnected myself from the violinist after being forced to let him use my body, I would also be actively killing him, but it would be legal because he never had a right to my body in the first place. I do indeed have the right to kill him outright in such a scenario.

The key word in the top statement is any and all of my resources. Pregnancy does not require the use of any or all of one's resources for a nine month period. Like the tort case, I believe that a mother should provide the minimal duty in order to keep the child alive- use of her body for nine months. After that, it's her decision whether to continue to care for her child.

The actual duration doesn't matter. We need to address the basic question: Does the child's right to life trump the woman's right to her body? The answer must be no, based on all legal and moral precedent of our culture.

[Ben Kenobi]

We need to address the basic question: Does the child's right to life trump the woman's right to her body?"

We've been stuck on this dilemma for awhile. Now I ask, why must it be one or the other? What bodily functions does a woman lose over the course of her pregnancy?

The woman does not 'lose' her body, so much as she shares her womb, with the child. What does pregnancy cost her over the course of 9 months?

I'm weighing this loss, to the life of a child, and I do not find that they balance. If you accept Thompson's argument, then you cannot treat the unborn as less then fully human. You cannot say that there is only one person involved, when Thompson assumes two.

Also, you ignored my earlier example, why should an abortionist profit from abortion? Even in the case of rape? Refusal of treatment as in the case of donating a kidney is different from the active killing of abortion.

Many people feel they have obligations to their parents, for example, but that is not reflected in our laws or universal concepts of morality.

Are you saying that Law = morality? Some things, such as religion and being a good samaritan cannot be compelled, yet we still consider this moral behavior.
Honoring one's father and mother is a part of this. Thompson does not say that ít's a personal matter, but denies such duties exist.

the host voluntarily admitted the guest, and then told him to leave later; that's like voluntarily becoming pregnant and then having an abortion.

Not quite. The blizzard is analogous to the rape, an event beyond the control of the host that forces the problem. Also, the conclusion of the tort refutes your earlier argument. In certain conditions, the right to life will outweigh property rights. There is a limit as the host is not required, by law, to do more than to ensure the safety of his guest, as the woman cannot be compelled to do more than carry her child for nine months.

[Jack the Bodiless]

"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?

As we're talking about rape victims, we're also talking about early abortions. A small clump of undifferentiated cells feels no pain or emotion and cannot be tortured.

"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.

Here we were discussing the relative risk of death to the mother. You were arguing that abortion was dangerous. For rape victims, torturing them is MORE dangerous.

"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.

The rapist is responsible for the initial rape, but NOT the subsequent torture. In this scenario, the torturers are John Ashcroft and George W. Bush. They are NOT innocent bystanders. Unlike the rapist, they deliberately decided that the torture should take place, and are actively preventing the woman's escape from it.

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.

...After being subjected to nine months of psychological torture. She has the right to use deadly force to protect herself from this. Against the rapist, the fetus, and the politicians.

As I consider the use of "deadly force" against a small clump of cells to be no big deal, there are really no innocent people involved in this scenario except the rape victim herself. The rapist and the politicians are the guilty parties here.

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18

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?

The child would have been punished a lot more if it would have been brought into the world, with a father that resented it's mother and all the hostility that entails. And don't offer abortion as an option, because my conscience wouldn't have allowed that, and I know she wouldn't have either.

Another thing I never mentioned was that she was an older woman, past her child-bearing prime. Along with her drinking, there would probably have been a good chance of some sort of birth defect. How much would the child have suffered then?

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

It's very easy to pass judgement when you know nothing about the situation isn't it? A typical reaction by anti-abortionists, they expect everyone to be moral supermen. We both had our reasons for getting together. It obviously wasn't a good decision but it happened.

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.

Again I say you have a lot to learn about life and people. Adoption is not always an option. The bond between parent and child, especially the mother, is so strong that some people can't even concieve of abandoning a child.

And what happens in a situation where the the woman's boyfriend/husband doesn't want to give up the child? Should the woman be haunted for the rest of her life, being reminded of her rape everytime she looks at the child?

I get the impression that you are young, probably still living with your parents. It's quite easy to see life in terms of black and white when you don't have any real conflicts to endure. But once you get out into the world, you'll start to realize that there are all sorts of exceptions, a lot of gray.

I used to be anti-abortion myself when I was much younger, and in a way I still am. When I discovered that I was almost a father, it hit me like a ton of bricks. But I've come to realize that every situation is unique, and having an either/or reaction to the issue just doesn't work.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by obiwan18
We've been stuck on this dilemma for awhile. Now I ask, why must it be one or the other? What bodily functions does a woman lose over the course of her pregnancy?

The woman does not 'lose' her body, so much as she shares her womb, with the child. What does pregnancy cost her over the course of 9 months?

It doesn't matter that the woman loses her body, or doesn't lose it. The use of my property, however small or unobtrusive the use, is still prohibited without my direct or implied consent. The actual term or severity of the term is unimportant to my original question: Does the right to life trump another's right to property?

Also, you ignored my earlier example, why should an abortionist profit from abortion? Even in the case of rape? Refusal of treatment as in the case of donating a kidney is different from the active killing of abortion.

As for profiting from abortion, it seems logical to me that medical services have to cost money, whatever they are. I don't see that as a moral problem. If abortion is illegal, than it is illegal, but I see nothing wrong with doctors providing and getting compensated for a legal procedure.

In what way is refusal of the transplant after my abduction different from an abortion after rape? Both times, The victim has been forced into a situation where a dependent has been forcefully hooked up to their body. I see no difference between an abortion and me un-hooking the violinist from my kidneys. Since the release of the violinist is legal, so is the abortion.

Are you saying that Law = morality? Some things, such as religion and being a good samaritan cannot be compelled, yet we still consider this moral behavior.

I'm discussing morality that is generally considered universal. I am not aware of any country or society that finds a person's right to life comes before the right of others to their property, for instance. In contrast, being a good samaritan is not a universal value in the same respect. Universal morals are indeed quite close to law; they just aren't written down.

Not quite. The blizzard is analogous to the rape, an event beyond the control of the host that forces the problem. Also, the conclusion of the tort refutes your earlier argument. In certain conditions, the right to life will outweigh property rights. There is a limit as the host is not required, by law, to do more than to ensure the safety of his guest, as the woman cannot be compelled to do more than carry her child for nine months.

The blizzard is not analagous to the rape. If the man in the blizzard represents the fetus, than the fact that he was allowed in by the homeowner is analagous to a willing pregnancy. The blizzard itself thus represents a state of unlife or death. Rape would be the man forcing his way into the house and staying there, and abortion after rape would be the family then expelling the trespassing man from their house. Your analogy is fundamentally flawed. It is analagous only to the abortion of a willingly concieved fetus, because the man was invited in.

[Spiffor]

I wonder why so many people try to use reason with Obiwan, as his perceptions of reality are completely different from 2003 people. He seems to imagine sex as a deep mark of trust and love between 2 individuals, and that meaningless or semi-meaningless sex doesn't exist (or shouldn't exist).
It is good to live in a dream world. However Obiwan, you must understand it is perfectly possible for people to have sex because they want the sheer pleasure of it, and not because of any external factors like love or common trust.
I don't know if you are married, if you live an extremely stable relation, or if you are a virgin. I don't know if you know people whose relationships last a couple of months or not, and in fact I don't care to know. But I can tell you, these people exist in the 2003 world, whether you find it bad or good.
These people are not necessarily sluts (or the masculine equivalent, I don't know the word), but simply look at sex as a terrestrial pleasure, not as a sacred gift from god.

I know one of these people who decided to keep the baby. She is abandoned by the father (who obviously wasn't ready for this), and is barely supported by the family or the welfare system. She is poor, and every problem of daily life becomes a catastrophe to her, since this situation is extremely stressful. She had to give up giving the breast to her baby too early because of the kindergarten (is that the name of the place you put babies ?), and she often yeels at her baby because of too much stress. She does everything she can to bring love to her kid though, and has no energy left to solve her own problems (she starved for one month to let her kid eat). This is not an exceptional life of misery. This is normal life for most single mothers. While she puts as much energy as she can, her baby will never have a satisfying development, and I fear for the future.
If one day you know a person in this situation, maybe you'll reassess your moralistic stance. If one day you have a 3-months relationship with a woman which included sex, maybe you'll understand as well.

Until then, I let you spit your moralistic stance as much as you like it. Please continue to live in your dream world, for it looks much more beautiful than the real one.

[DanS]

and is barely supported by the family or the welfare system

There seems to be a problem with this system, no? She should (and is, in the US) entitled to child support from the father.

Sometimes there are no excuses in this world.

[Spiffor]

The father did not recognize the baby yet (he abandoned her), and the judicial procedure which features a paternity test is not ended yet. Because of some new problems, the girl might completely give up the case, and will not be able to force the father to a paternity test before the baby reaches 18 (French procedures). Besides, the father is still just a student, and has been so shocked she kept the baby, that he refuses any contact with her or his kid. He will pay support for the baby only once proven the father, and only once he earns money.

While many right-wing people would consider the welfare she gets more than generous (about $1000 a month), it really isn't enough for rent, food, education of the child and studies : she is bound to her extensive home if she wants the kid to be in the kindergarten (if she moves, she has an extremely slim chance of being allowed in kindergarten again, and she doesn't have enough energy left to simply look for a better situation. Yes, kiondergartens in France really suck)

Yes, it is a sad story. And that's because I think of her, and other single mothers who explained me their hardships (not as extensively as her, granted), that I am quite rash to obiwan's or anyone who shares this kind of holier-than-thou speech.