quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: As far as practical things pro-life organization could do to combat poverty, how about support for an increase in the minimum wage, support for universal health insurance, support for extended family leave with pay, support for raising the poverty level, support for increased welfare assistance for families with children, and decreased taxes for families with children.
Most of those might reduce abortions (though there might be unintended offsetting consequences, such as the minimum wage increase driving up low-wage unemployment). However, I regard much of this governmental redistribution of wealth as itself a form of violence -- armed robbery -- and as such I could not conscientiously support any organization that pushed that agenda. At least with the present abortion laws, someone else is (usually) doing the killing, whereas tax-funded redistribution at gunpoint makes me a fellow participant in the crime.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Hi, Irregardless! Did you get a chance to puzzle through the list we were putting together for you, up back a little in the thread? Was it what you were looking for?
To some extent. I'm still ruminating on the matter.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: The fact that a fetus is a living human organism is a concrete biological fact.
I'm not sure I would agree with that statement, and I'm pretty well-trained in the area of concrete biological facts.
Do you mind if I ask you some questions to try to unpack the meaning of the sentence, or would that be too bothersome?
Fire away. Up front I will elaborate that I say it is a human organism if it has a human genome, and that "life" is determined by fairly straightforward biological criteria (growth, energy transformation, reproduction, reaction to stimuli, etc.).
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, I regard much of this governmental redistribution of wealth as itself a form of violence -- armed robbery -- and as such I could not conscientiously support any organization that pushed that agenda. At least with the present abortion laws, someone else is (usually) doing the killing, whereas tax-funded redistribution at gunpoint makes me a fellow participant in the crime.
Wow, we've got quite the libertarian here. Perhaps you can explain to me how it is, exactly, that the concept of private property (which developed gradually as Western civilization's solution to the problem of how to make use of natural resources) came to be written down as eternal moral law? You concede that wealth redistribution could improve people's lives in at least one important way. So why rule it out as a possible solution to some of our problems?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Ahh... so there really is a shade of grey in the pro-life stance already then for some choice... never really looked at it that way before. But to me it dilutes the strength of the total argument, since there's already a "choice" exemption in there.
For me, there are shades of grey. Not for everyone. But in my "shades of grey", I'm more likely to want to err on the side of protecting the innocent life of the baby, than on the side of protecting the freedom to choose of the mother - since the mother exercised her freedom to choose whether or not to engage in the act that led to that life. (Which is why, although I don't like it, I would support an exemption in cases of rape.)
quote:Originally posted by pH: I don't know. To me, that shade of grey makes pro-life seem far more like a punishment for having sex.
I don't think of pregnancy as being a punishment for sex; I think it's a natural consequence of sex, and anyone old enough to do it should know that, and accept that possibility when they make their choice to engage in it. To say that people who want to protect the baby are trying to punish the mother is unfair ... nobody forced her to engage in the baby-making behavior.
Unless somebody did. Which is when there should be an exception. Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term as being a punishment for sex. Saying, "Well, she shouldn't have been having sex then anyway" just reinforces that to me, since that's how I interpret what you're saying.
Also, I think there should be way more of a push for men to use condoms. I like that there is a new line of protection marketed solely to women, and I think that's wonderful. But from what I've heard from friends, a lot of men get pissy when asked to use condoms because they make sex feel less good (?) and "She's the one with the uterus; it should be her responsibility anyway." That kind of attitude makes me sick.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Wow, we've got quite the libertarian here. Perhaps you can explain to me how it is, exactly, that the concept of private property (which developed gradually as Western civilization's solution to the problem of how to make use of natural resources) came to be written down as eternal moral law?
Well, I would first of all deny that the concept of private property is either Western or recent in origin. As a matter of my own personal beliefs, I say that God instituted it, but in regards to using it as a basis of public policy I'd say that it is a natural outgrowth of human nature, and that any society which persistently fails to protect it is doomed to economic collapse.
quote:You concede that wealth redistribution could improve people's lives in at least one important way. So why rule it out as a possible solution to some of our problems?
Because the end doesn't justify the means. You correctly identified me as a libertarian; as such, I reject the use of coercive force except in the protection of rights.
We may be getting a bit far afield from the abortion topic, though.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: Fire away. Up front I will elaborate that I say it is a human organism if it has a human genome, and that "life" is determined by fairly straightforward biological criteria (growth, energy transformation, reproduction, reaction to stimuli, etc.).
Okay, cool. I'm going to try to parse out where we are going with this first, so be sure to let me know if I'm misinterpreting this.
By the way, I'm pretty sure this line of thinking leads us either into an untenable position or one which requires additional (i.e., less concrete) assumptions. I'm not sure I know what you mean, though, so unpacking it slowly would help me a lot.
On the other hand, it should be clear from the get-go that I would hold that even if I'm correct -- that is, this line of thinking leads us either into an untenable position or one which requires additional (i.e., less concrete) assumptions -- this shouldn't be taken to prove anything for or against a policy permitting voluntary abortions. it would just mean that we would've identified an additional area of complexity, that's all.
quote:Originally posted by pH: I see forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term as being a punishment for sex. Saying, "Well, she shouldn't have been having sex then anyway" just reinforces that to me, since that's how I interpret what you're saying.
I don't mean to say "she shouldn't have been having sex." I mean to say, "If she chooses to have sex, she knows beforehand what the consequences might be, and either agrees to them or ignores them; but the consequences don't change just because she wishes she'd made a different choice after the fact."
How can we (society, the government, whatever) punish a woman for having sex? We don't jail her for it. We didn't sentence her to be pregnant; we didn't create the pregnancy; she and her partner created it. We're just trying to protect that life that she started, just as we would protect her life if someone was trying to end it. If she's finds pregnancy a punishment, she's punishing herself.
On the other hand, pH, I completely agree 100% with your second paragraph. I wish pregnancy showed on dads too!
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah Storm, but a lot of men make such a huge deal out of it. And I think for a lot of women, if they're willing to let a guy be that intimate, they're a lot more likely to give in on that point. I don't think women should have to make those demands so often. I think the men should WANT to use condoms without ultimatums.
posted
pH, I think you know entirely the wrong guys. Among the guys I've talked about this with, using a condom is a written-in-stone law unless there is some reason why one is not necessary (and "she's on birth control" doesn't count unless both partners have had recent STD testing).
Added: Wait, I can think of one guy who avoids using them wherever possible... to the point of "forgetting" to take any with him when he hits the clubs to, uh, forage. He once said "Hey, if I forgot it, that's just a reason not to use one!"
But he's a mysogynsitic jerk, so that shouldn't count.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: If the fetus is a true human life, then of course the term is appropriate, and where murder is concerned, it's necessary to any debate if it's actually happening. That's why you can't just negotiate it out of the discussion by changing the terminology. It's wrong (I believe, obviously), and furthermore it's simply not going to work. People will not accept it, the people who believe it's murder, that is.
I fail to see how I have changed the terminology. Either human life is of higher value than bodily autonomy or it isn't. Whether you view abortion as murder or something lesser is an irrelevant point. I'm sorry if I'm being repititious, but I feel that I feel that I'm being falsely accused or bad discussion tactics.
quote: Who is doing the subjugating, though? In the majority of situations, she is. Unprotected sex or improperly used birth control are usually the causes of unwanted pregnancies. I see no reason to want to redress this "subjugation" at the cost of-possibly-a human child's life when the "subjugation" is temporary and easily avoidable.
From a moral standpoint, I absolutely agree with this. However from a legal standpoint I think that punishments should fit the crime. I think that carrying around a baby for nine months is a stiff penalty for irresponsible sex. Especially when somebody equally as guilty has no punishment. I think that Juxtapose has an important point. There can not be true legal equality between the sexes if abortion is criminalized.
quote: The reason why one's blood is not demanded in your scenario may be that legally establishing criminal or civil liability takes a lot longer than the window of time in which your 'victim' will be in need of blood. Certainly, if the victim has perpetual medical expenses related to the accident, the courts can take that out in lieu of physical blood.
It's possible that time frames are an issue, but I doubt it. I believe the disctiction lies in what is an acceptable form of punishment and what is more "cruel and unusual." Taking away somebody's blood against their will seems like such a violation that I believe it is both cruel and unusual. Making somebody pay for medical expenses does not seem so.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: pH, I think you know entirely the wrong guys. Among the guys I've talked about this with, using a condom is a written-in-stone law unless there is some reason why one is not necessary (and "she's on birth control" doesn't count unless both partners have had recent STD testing).
See, all things Canadian taste good and are better for you. It's true.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*LOL* I don't deny that these men are not choice individuals. But they seem to be getting laid the most when it comes to the women I know, who are mostly college-age.
posted
Yes, I agree. Condom use as a non-negotiable item should be drilled into everybody's head throughout every sex ed class they ever take.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry, I meant to say "phrasing", not terminology. You've obviously not changed any of the definitions to the words we're using, but the way in which you structured your sentence forces the speaker to place a higher priority on personal bodily autonomy than on the life being destroyed.
At least, it does when I say it to myself. Anyway, pro-lifers aren't going to agree to consider the issue from a stance that from the get-go handicaps their position. Just like a pro-choicer wouldn't agree to argue from the idea that, "Destroying the fetus that she could have avoided is more less important than her personal bodily autonomy."
quote:I think that carrying around a baby for nine months is a stiff penalty for irresponsible sex. Especially when somebody equally as guilty has no punishment. I think that Juxtapose has an important point. There can not be true legal equality between the sexes if abortion is criminalized.
Ummm...well, that's biology. Blame God, or evolution, or the Life, Universe, and Everything. And-as I've kept saying-if you don't want this penalty, don't engage in the behavior. Why, when there is quite possibly a human life being lost, is this so much to ask? Why? Birth control is cheap. It's abundant. It's easy to use. It's effective when used properly. I believe in "personal bodily autonomy", but really, if you want someone to protect it, encourage them to protect it proactively-not when you have to kill something to protect yourself from a stupid mistake.
As for there being no true equality...well in exceptions of rape, sure there can. If you permit abortions in the case of rape (and no, the woman does not have to prove she was raped and yes, I know, this offers an opportunity for abortions for women who were not raped that some might take), then the vast majority of women seeking abortions would be doing so because they had unprotected or improperly protected sex with a man before they were ready to have a child.
Assuming the sex was consentual, in what way is equality between the sexes threatened? Really the only way it is threatened is because the woman is "forced" to carry to term a baby she doesn't want...but apparently was not concerned with enough to properly prevent the pregnancy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, it's unequal because the man can walk away from the situation at any time. Even legally, all he has to do is pay money every month. He doesn't have to deal with the physical and emotional implications of being pregnant, even though he was being just as irresponsible as the woman.
quote:Even legally, all he has to do is pay money every month. He doesn't have to deal with the physical and emotional implications of being pregnant, even though he was being just as irresponsible as the woman.
This is one of those situations where civilization should step in and collectively disdain him...
EDIT: with the purpose of encouraging him (and all males) to support in every way possible the child he was responsible in making.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Y'know, the one thing I truly don't understand in logical stance of the general pro-life position is the "rape" exemption. I understand "life of the mother" clauses, but not the "ok in case of rape" standpoint. It just doesn't seem consistent to me.
I understand that it doesn't look consistent at all. Personally, I'm against a rape exception. If I take a stand believing that life is life and that the baby is alive then it doesn't matter how it was created, it deserves the protection we afford a newborn infant. I am, however, fully in support of providing medical care to any woman who has been raped and for that medical care to include the morning after pill, if she desires it. While it's not foolproof, it's highly effective in preventing implantation, and that will remove a worry and burden from the woman and she need never know whether she would have been pregnant or not.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far as that goes, I agree, pH, it's unequal. Personally I think the man should have to do more-spend time with the kid, take an interest. I'm unsure how something like that would be legislated, but I fail to see how the possible death of a human child doesn't trump this "what if" inequality.
It all comes back to that, for me. Personally there's a lot I'm willing to support in the name of equality. Affirmative Action, sexual harrassment laws that are enforced, public and media pressure to end gender discrimination, improving job opportunities and education opportunities for women, more women in politics, tough (and I mean draconian) punishments for rapists and wife-beaters, tracking down and jailing or forcing to pay deadbeet dads, maternity leave, insurance support and tax breaks for young mothers (single or otherwise)...hell, I've voted for political candidates before based on their support of measures like that.
But I get a lot more hesitant fighting inequality when there's a chance the fight is won over the corpse of a human child.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess to me, it's not a child. I can understand how partial-birth abortions are bad. Those bother me. But first trimester abortions? They don't bother me at all.
I'm curious as to how many of you have spoken with women who've had abortions and what they had to say and what you thought of it.
One of my experiences: One of my old roommates once told me that she'd had two (I believe, it may have only been one) abortions in high school. She had a medical condition that made her chances of being pregnant something like one in a million, and she used condoms, but she still got pregnant. Her father told her that she could choose to keep or abort, and that she could either decide alone or with the father-to-be. She made her own decisions. She said that when she had the abortion, she got physically ill. Apparently, she was far enough along that they could tell that the baby would have been a boy. She knew approximately when he would have been born, and that month is always a sad one for her. It was a tough, emotional decision. But overall, she feels that she made the right choice, and I agree with her. Now she has the opportunity for college and a career, and she can make a much better life for any children she does choose to have. I don't think adoption was offered as an option to her; I don't think it was acceptable where she lived at the time, but even if it was, I still agree with her choice.
quote:Personally I think the man should have to do more-spend time with the kid, take an interest.
I don't think this would be a good idea. If a man doesn't want to be around the baby, I don't think you should force him to. I don't see how either the child or the dad will benefit from it unless he is the type that could be brought around by holding a baby. I don't think that would include most young men.
That seems almost like requiring the woman to keep the baby for awhile before choosing to give it up for adoption.
Posts: 221 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm curious as to how many of you have spoken with women who've had abortions and what they had to say and what you thought of it.
I have when I've volunteered with a ministry and I have seen women devastated by it, especially those who knew deep down they were doing something wrong and allowed their boyfriend or family to talk them into it. I've also seen the other side, the women who kept their children and now say they can not imagine life without their beloved babies and are so grateful they didn't go through with the abortion.
And I've heard testimony from a young man whose mother DID abort him. It was a later term abortion than they thought and he survived the procedure. Talk about powerful. Here's someone that some people might say shouldn't have been born. His mother was poor and uneducated and couldn't support him. She definitely decided she didn't want him and turned him over to the state to raise. He was adopted by a family and he had a lot to say about whether or not his life was worth living.
I don't buy the argument that having a baby means you can never have a life of your own or a career, I'm proof that having a baby at a young age before you finish college isn't a death blow to your dreams. Heck, I stay home and enjoy my children and can work on my novel anytime I want to and my dream as a young girl was to grow up and become a professional writer.
I know many women who had babies young and even unmarried who have done very well for themselves. One is a friend whose daughter takes gymnastics with my Emily, and we've talked about it many times. (you get to know people you spend three hours a week with, when there's nothing for you to do but watch your kids and talk) She continued to work to support herself and her baby and now is a regional manager for a department store, owns her own home in a great neighborhood and she and her daughter have an extremely close relationship.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess to me, it's not a child. I can understand how partial-birth abortions are bad. Those bother me. But first trimester abortions? They don't bother me at all.
That's just a guess, though. You're guessing it's not a true human life. You don't actually know. And what length of gestation is this magic number? Six months and one minute? Five months and three days? The instant of conception? Right up until the baby crowns?
Some people say, "You have to pick a date." I agree with that, actually. An arbitrary date needs to be picked for all sorts of things. Driving, drinking, sex, voting, credit cards, etc. None of those are possibly destroying a human life.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, it could be said that all 5 are possible destroying human life, but that's beside the point.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's just a guess, though. You're guessing it's not a true human life.
What I meant was not, "I guess it's not a human life" so much as, "I guess TO ME it's not a human life." As in, in my opinion, I suppose I don't really think it's a human life. Just like, I guess to me, God exists. The point is not the "I guess" so much as the "To me."
posted
The whole thing about "Life starts at conception" bothers me, because statistically it means I could have 50 dead children waiting for me in heaven, even though I've never had an abortion.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivet, the part I wonder about is less when life begins (that's a scientific concern) and more when the life has a soul. I have a hard time believing that ALL spontaneously aborted fertilized eggs have souls. It just doesn't fit with my picture of God.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's where I get confused reading some people's posts. Life is a measurable, is it or isn't it kind of thing. You look in a microscope and if it moves, it's more likely to be alive than dead. Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: nowhere in your arguments do you address the lost human life-if that's what is lost.
You're right of course, Rakeesh. That's what was bothering me when I formulated this argument; it still returns to the question of whether or not the fetus is a person. This is what I get for hatracking at 4:30 AM. Although, I should say, I still do think the point in and of itself is valid.
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: Up front I will elaborate that I say it is a human organism if it has a human genome, and that "life" is determined by fairly straightforward biological criteria (growth, energy transformation, reproduction, reaction to stimuli, etc.).
I'm no biologist, Irregardless, but it seems like your definition here covers just about every cell in my body, possibly exempting my sperm, which only have half a genome. If I were to bang my head against the wall a few times, killing some brain cells, you might consider me stupid, but certainly no murderer.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But the "to me" part has no bearing on whether or not "the guess" is right.
Except that the guess concerns my beliefs and not the fact of whether or not there is life.
But if it's the guessing that bothers you, one could argue that we execute people based on the fact that twelve other people guess that they're guilty of a heinous crime. Until we develop the Star Trek technology to extract memories from the deceased, it's a guess, and it will remain a guess.
posted
I don't know that every miscarriage is a death. But since I don't know when life starts, I don't think we should pick an arbitrary time before which it's not a human life, without having more information than we have now. Perhaps someday we'll be able to state categorically that "At this moment, when the heart starts to beat, when the brainwaves are measurable, we know that the soul enters the body, and before then it's okay to abort." But we don't know that time yet.
To some people that would mean, "Okay, since we don't know it's alive, let's give the woman the freedom to choose up until we know it's alive." To me, it means, "Let's give the woman the freedom to choose her actions up until she starts what may be a life (in other words, conception), after which, let's protect that life."
And to those who've said that carrying a baby to term is unfair, unequal treatment of the sexes, a punishment, I like Rakeesh's answer best: That may be true, but it isn't the government or the pro-lifers that determined those consequences or made things unequal; it's God, or Mother Nature, or Biology. Don't look at those who are trying to protect a life and accuse them of trying to punish the mother. They had nothing to do with determining the consequences of her actions. They're just trying to prevent further harmful actions.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Every time a male ejaculates, the cell count is in the millions, IIRC.
The reunion in the afterlife is going to get awfully crowded if we meet up with every potential life...
I think there's a real problem with determining when a human soul is present...at what point does that happen...
Since we can't measure its existence in the first place, figuring out WHEN it gets in there, or if the soul merely "wears" our body, or interfaces with it...etc., it just going to boil down to a matter for religious disputation.
Adding in atheists and 1/2 credit for agnostics (give or take), I think we're going to have a very tough time deciding the point at which we would call an embryo or fetus an equal to any person already born.
This is one of those nasty issues that could simply absorb a lot of time and energy and generate nothing but heat for decades to come.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me, it means, "Let's give the woman the freedom to choose her actions up until she starts what may be a life (in other words, conception), after which, let's protect that life."
Again, I argue that a woman who engages in intercourse while taking birth control precautions is making a conscious decision NOT to start what may be a life.
posted
Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about miscarriages per se, just fertilized eggs that never implant (usually due to meeting up with a sperm at the wrong time of the cycle).
My question would be, is it a miscarriage if your were never actually "pregnant" (no implantation)?
This is why I have zero qualms about the 'morning after pill' and similar treatments. I just don't have the mental energy to morn ever unimplanted embryo, especially since I have no way of knowing how many there may have been.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if it's the guessing that bothers you, one could argue that we execute people based on the fact that twelve other people guess that they're guilty of a heinous crime. Until we develop the Star Trek technology to extract memories from the deceased, it's a guess, and it will remain a guess.
On the contrary, it's not a guess, it's a certainty to the point of being beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Again, I argue that a woman who engages in intercourse while taking birth control precautions is making a conscious decision NOT to start what may be a life.
You keep reiterating this point. However, if she has thought it through to the extent that you are suggesting, than she surely is aware that there is the small chance that she will get pregnant. You get in a car, you may never get out again even with a seatbelt, airbags, and defensive driving. You use drugs, you still may get a disease or OD no matter how careful you are with the needles and dosage.
With sex comes the possibility of creating life, no matter what precautions the two tangoers have taken. Just because in this case we have the means of that discharging that responsibility my means of killing the fetus/baby doesn't mean that we should utilize it. The whole concept makes me sad. Seems something like a using a baby airbag Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think many people say this at all. For example, I don't personally know any pro-life activists who don't want a life of the mother exception. And I know lots of pro-life activist.
I do know pro-life activists who oppose a life of the mother exemption. I know many who oppose a health of the mother exemption. The line between the two is not always distinct since medical science is not advanced enough to know exactly which conditions will kill the mother and whether medical care will be successful in saving a life.
I offer you one borderline case, suppose that the mother is diagnosed with cancer. She can not receive chemotherapy while pregnant. The doctors estimate that her chances of survival if she begins chemotherapy immediately are 80%, if she waits to receive chemotherapy until after the child is born, her chances of survival will drop to 50%. Is the life of the mother or the health of the mother at risk here. Should a woman be allowed the choice of an abortion under these circumstances?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I regard much of this governmental redistribution of wealth as itself a form of violence -- armed robbery
There are many who regard the market system which takes the wealth created by workers and rewards it to CEOs and stock holders as a form of violence -- armed robbery so to speak.
All of your arguments rely on the proposition that the current distribution of the wealth in our society is just. I personally, can't find think of any logical definition of justice that would make such a proposition defensible.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I'm presuming that, in Rabbit's example, the chemotherapy would have (at least) a high chance of lethality for the fetus. Since chemotherapy is basically pumping poisons through the patient, this doesn't seem like much of a reach, to me. Anyone who knows better, feel free to brutally correct me.
Irregardless and Rabbit, The debate between libertarianism and government regulation is one I find very interesting, but out of place on this thread. It really deserves it's own space to develop, so I'll go start one. Here's the link.Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Juxtapose, I know that. There's still a difference between treating a disease and ripping a child out of the womb.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, chemotherapy would likely produce the equivalent of an early-term chemical abortion, thus eliminating the "ripping a child out of the womb." (nice emotionally charged language, btw.) Even late term, it would cause the death of the fetus.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well it comes back down to intent. There is a major difference in intent between undergoing dangerous (to the mother as well) chemotherapy that stands a strong chance of killing the fetus as well, and targeting that fetus for destruction for the sake of convenience.
And frankly, his language is not very emotionally charged except for the word "child". Tack on "possible-" to that word, and it becomes a realistic reflection of what actually happens.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I like this thought. Since the female body is designed to kill off as many sperm as possible before they reach the egg, it suggests that every human being is biologically designed to weed out the weak, inferior life as soon as possible.
Sounds good to me.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Among the guys I've talked about this with, using a condom is a written-in-stone law unless there is some reason why one is not necessary (and "she's on birth control" doesn't count unless both partners have had recent STD testing).
