|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 216 responses total. |
i
|
|
response 100 of 216:
| 
Oct 11 02:23 UTC 2000 |
There are some really good people in the "pro-life" camp, but most that
i'm familiar with don't give a hoot about all the "helpless little human
beings" who die in easily prevented miscarriages, but would scream
"MURDER!" at the thought of withholding neo-natal intensive care from
a half-pound premie - call it Swiss Cheese Logic.
Re: #97 - Interesting that you seem to equate a one-night-stand with
rape and seduction with forceful assault. Do you feel that women are
not mentally competent to control their own sex lives, or is this more
an Old Testament position (women are talking livestock; their wishes do
not matter), or what?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 101 of 216:
|
Oct 11 04:21 UTC 2000 |
(Nitpicking: one need not be born within the borders of the United States
to be a citizen, even a natural-born citizen, of the United States. The
children of US citizens are US citizens, too, no matter where born.)
|
jerryr
|
|
response 102 of 216:
|
Oct 11 12:46 UTC 2000 |
saying that pro-lifers respect the pro-choicer's ability to choose abortion
if they wish is just so much bullshit. my fingers are not in my ears. but
some people's craniums seem to be firmly ensconced in their rectal cavitites.
|
md
|
|
response 103 of 216:
|
Oct 11 13:09 UTC 2000 |
Like many, many people I know, I don't approve of abortion but I
wouldn't make it illegal. Which of your comforting little pigeonholes
does that put me in, jer?
|
mooncat
|
|
response 104 of 216:
|
Oct 11 14:12 UTC 2000 |
I think Brighn is saying something along the lines of two people being
given the same (or very similar) information and simply come to two
different conclusions based on that information.
Brighn- am I close?
|
brighn
|
|
response 105 of 216:
|
Oct 11 14:36 UTC 2000 |
Thank you, Anne.
your fingers are in your ears, Jerry. I have yet to say that pro-lifers
respect anybody's right to have an abortion. They don't.
Some pro-lifers respect pro-choice OPINIONS about abortion. They just
disagree, and feel that the law should support their opinion.
Again, the debate is NOT about whether a person should GET an abortion, the
debate -- on BOTH sides -- is about whether a personshould be ALLOWED to get
an abortion.
|
jazz
|
|
response 106 of 216:
|
Oct 11 15:13 UTC 2000 |
Not anymore. I've decided to be the first Pro-Abortion candidate.
I think everyone should have one - it builds character.
|
jp2
|
|
response 107 of 216:
|
Oct 11 15:31 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 108 of 216:
|
Oct 11 15:40 UTC 2000 |
That's certainly a good way to restrict abortions for poor people, while still
making it possible for the rich.
|
jazz
|
|
response 109 of 216:
|
Oct 11 15:46 UTC 2000 |
Poor people are more resourceful than you might think, in that case.
|
jp2
|
|
response 110 of 216:
|
Oct 11 15:47 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 111 of 216:
|
Oct 11 15:54 UTC 2000 |
Re #107: I don't think states should have any more interest in this than
in what you do in your own bedroom.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 112 of 216:
|
Oct 11 18:02 UTC 2000 |
re: 111 Don't they have laws about that though? <grins>
<bows to Brighn>
|
albaugh
|
|
response 113 of 216:
|
Oct 11 18:34 UTC 2000 |
Some day the technology will exist which will allow even the basest zygote
to be grown in an incubator. At that point, all the "non-viability" arguments
will go out the door. Then, presumably, the law would change. Or there might
be people that would argue, "No! If you can grow it, you will expect me to
be responsible for it, take care of it, *pay* for it. I don't want to!
Kill it, kill it now!" Perhaps this scenario will unfold in our lifetimes...
|
polygon
|
|
response 114 of 216:
|
Oct 11 19:17 UTC 2000 |
Re 113. It takes surgery to remove eggs from a woman's body (let alone a
pregnancy any farther along), surgery is invasive, involves risk of
infection, etc.
I reject any notion that endows a single cell with full human being
rights. The opposition to RU486 and other "morning after" pills is
appalling because it seems to be based on the assumption that a fertilized
egg is a person.
On the other hand, if that technology makes it possible for a woman to, in
effect, put the fetus up for adoption without having to complete the
pregnancy and go through childbirth, I suspect it would be a popular
alternative to abortion.
|
brighn
|
|
response 115 of 216:
|
Oct 11 19:49 UTC 2000 |
#114> The invasiveness is a decent enough argument for non-invasive forms of
abortion (which you provide), but not for invasive forms of abortion. Although
I think you sideways hint at that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 116 of 216:
|
Oct 11 20:19 UTC 2000 |
Re #111: states do have such laws, for example, against fornication,
sodomy, probably other sexual practices.
|
brighn
|
|
response 117 of 216:
|
Oct 11 20:56 UTC 2000 |
Michigan, for instance, has laws against sodomy and bestiality (at least).
|
md
|
|
response 118 of 216:
|
Oct 11 21:18 UTC 2000 |
I think it's time for my abortion quiz. Do you think the following
situations a) are okay and b) should be legal:
1. A rich yuppie couple have two daughters, and now they want a son.
On learning that the fe-yuppie is pregnant again, they have her tested
and find out that the child will be another girl, so they decide to
abort.
2. A white woman learns that she is pregnant. She knows that the
father is black and she doesn't want to be embarrassed in front of her
friends and family by giving birth to a black child, so she decides to
abort.
3. The young widow of an elderly billionaire is pregnant with the child
they conceived before he died of old age. She knows that under the
terms of his will the child will get everything, but if there is no
child then she gets everything, so she decides to abort.
|
lowclass
|
|
response 119 of 216:
|
Oct 11 22:23 UTC 2000 |
I don't think any of the three choices are'Okay, But I still think they
should be legal.
Of course, be advised i wouldn't be likely to feel comfortable in
their company, or want to associate with them as a personal relationship.
there's trivial reasons for abortion as well as good ones, and none of
the above examples strike me as being made by adults, regardless of how much
older than 'legal age" they happen to be.
|
brighn
|
|
response 120 of 216:
|
Oct 11 22:28 UTC 2000 |
1. Not moral. Shold be legal.
2. Morality depends, actually... the embarassment isn't enough in and of
itself, but while the child be unduly punished for its race, because of the
economic or cultural context. I'd give it a 3 on a ten-point morality scale
(1 being immoral, 10 being moral, and #1 being a 1). Should be legal.
3. Here I'm waving a bit on the legality, but only a bit. What if he had died
BEFORE conception, but had his sperm frozen on the condition that she get
impregnated with it and carry his heir to term? Actually, maybe what this does
is move the first and second scenarios up one point on that morality scale.
This is definitely immoral, if her ONLY reason for aborting is to get the
money. Then again, he should have foreseen that and put a clause in his will
stripping her of any inheritance if the fetus or child dies by her hand, and
since he apparently didn't... his mistake. Her right to decide until the
fetus is at least viable. Should be legal. And, on second thought, it's not
really less moral than #1.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 121 of 216:
|
Oct 11 22:40 UTC 2000 |
Here we have people discussing other people's "morality", even though it
is none of our business. You may make whatever judgement you wish o other
people's behavior, and behave toward them as you wish, but what they
choose to do is *still* none of our business. My answer to the question
is, the mother may make all decisions about abortion if she is of age and
in the permitted period established by law.
|
brighn
|
|
response 122 of 216:
|
Oct 12 01:22 UTC 2000 |
Hm. This coming from a man who has no compunction discussing other people's
spirituality, when morality is a direct result of that.
We're not discussing real people, we're discussing hypotheticals.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 123 of 216:
|
Oct 12 04:00 UTC 2000 |
I have never discussed or judged any specific person's "spirituality"
here (although, as I said above, I may make my own judgements and act upon
them for myself). Nor have I ever connected "spirituality" and morality,
except to observe (often) that one can behave morally, by anyone's
definitions, for any number of reasons. I do think the weakest reason for
moral behavior (re, interacting ethically with others) is "spirituality",
i.e., superstition, but I'll accept ethical behavior for whatever reasons
it occurs.
You sure like to put words in my mouth I haven't said, and claiming I have
expressed ideas I have not. It would help if, instead of making false
claims about what others have said, you asked for further clarifications
of seeming contradictions or inconsistencies.
|
senna
|
|
response 124 of 216:
|
Oct 12 04:23 UTC 2000 |
What's wrong with discussing hypothetical situations? It looked to me like
a good gauge of opinions and moral stances. Do you find that uncomfortable?
Does the concept of morality make you queasy? What do you object for? We
know your opinions. Let's see what other people think.
|