posted
Pertaining to abortion, here's the thing that I don't understand. If both sides can admit that we don't really know when life begins - then isn't the pro-life position the best one to take? Because if you're not sure, then why not err on the side of life? We proscribe innocence to all accused until they're proven guilty because we err on the side of the accused's rights. Why can't we err on the side of the child's life and say, hey - we don't know for sure, but we do think it's sometime before delivery, so we're going to err on the side of protecting human life and say that fetus has a right to exist.
See, this is why I don't think it's really all about the "When life begins" question. I think it's more about "When does the fetuses' right to life trump the mother's rights to control her own body and choose when she wants to have children?"
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand that, about that clinic, the STD testing and accessibility of the pill are more important than condom use, but again...how are they going to prove that? I mean, if a gay guy comes in and wants STD testing, are they going to say, "No, we won't test you because your shirt and shoes match too well?"
At my school, they won't give referrals to a gynecologist if they know the referral is solely to obtain birth control because I go to a Jesuit university. But if I go in and say, "I'm getting super bad cramps, and I want to see a gynecologist and find out what can be done about them," it's not like they can hook me up to a Pain-o-Meter and see if I'm telling the truth or follow me to my home and make sure I'm not having the sexy good time.
I just think restrictions like that are silly. I mean, I don't care if the clinic doctor will write me a prescription for birth control or not. The clinic doctor is usually a very creepy man, and I really wouldn't feel comfortable discussing my birth control options with him, anyway. But that's really not the point. The point is, I fail to see what organizations think they're accomplishing by having these restrictions.
posted
Along those lines, there's something I've been wondering.
For everybody who's pro-life but thinks abortion is okay in a case of rape: Does the woman have to PROVE she was raped? If so, how? Because in my opinion, attempting to force a rape victim to file a police report is cruel.
posted
When people say they'll make an exception if the pregnancy would endanger the health of the mother, is mental health considered?
I've known women for whom pregnancy would trigger a debilitating mental crisis -- suicide would not be out of the question, but long-term living in misery was by far the most likely outcome.
I think our society is not ready to acknowledge that mental health is as important as physical health, and that there are people are not in control of their own mental health.
How much harm to the mother is "acceptable" before she would get to decide for herself whether to abort or not under the "health" exemption?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I believe that each individual involved should be free to make the decision. I oppose legislation restricting abortion.
posted
I am pro-life and I considered two things withen comming up with my stance on this topic, first life and what it consitutes and second personal choice, because it is something that I feel is very important and should be protected.
First, I feel that life begins at conception and since I feel that human life is precious it should be protected.
Second, I strongly believe that when any person decides they are ready for sex, they are in essence saying they are ready to have a child and THAT is the choice. If they are not ready to have a child they should not be having sex. I am all for birth control and family planning, but it is not 100% effective and that should be made clear to anyone who is taking it. Pregnancy is a consequence of sex and there should not be a choice to get out of it when that person already made the choice to have sex.
For Rape victims, they did not choose to have sex and IF a pregnancy occures they should get to choose whether to carry the child or not. I agree that it is not fair to REQUIRE a rape victim to file a police report, but if they want to get an abortion they are saying that they want to end a life. There needs to be a balance between life and choice and though it is not the best balance, filing a police report is the best way I can think of to strike that balance.
When I think if health of the mother I think of life in jepordy type health. Mental health is very important, but if someone is not ready to accept the consequences of sex they shouldn't be doing it.
I think that there is a major problem in our society today of sex being disasociated from it's puropose through the media. Sex is a fun pastime, sex has no consequences and EVERYONE is doing it. THEN that problem is further compounded by the stigma associated with putting a child up for adoption. The media says have casual sex and if you get pregnant, which is highly unlikely according to the media, the only socially acceptable thing to do is kill the child with an abortion or become a single mother which is a hard choice and will change your life forever, adoption is very hush, hush under the table and seen as the more embarrasing choice (at least that's how I feel it is portrayed, hopefully I'm wrong). If it was made abundantly clear that sex= baby no matter if a contraceptive is used or not and if there was less stigma towards adoption, then I feel the social desire for abortions to be leagal would greatly diminsh.
(Ok, I'm stepping off my soapbox now, sorry.)
Posts: 44 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you feel that married women for whom a pregnancy could be dangerous should not have sex, then? If such a woman is unable to find a man willing to marry her and not have sex, should she just accept that as her fate?
And I completely agree that adoption should have less of a stigma. Heck, I think that it ought to be okay for married couples who don't want babies to give them up.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, I hadn't really thought about that senario, but I'm assuming that you are talking about a danger for the woman that isn't going to go away. Perhaps sterilzation is the answer in that case? It would have to be her choice of course, as would the decision to not do it and take on said danger of having sex and becoming pregnant. That said, if a woman is pregnant and her life is in true immediate danger, it should be her decision on whether the pregnancy should continue or not.
Posts: 44 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When people say they'll make an exception if the pregnancy would endanger the health of the mother, is mental health considered?
Not for me. My views on when abortion should be legal are analogized from the justification defense to homocide, which we would not allow for mental harm.
I realize the analogy is far weaker on the mental health area, because several alternatives, such as leaving the area where the person causing mental distress is, are simply unavailable. Nevertheless, I'm starting from the proposition, "Does circumstance X justify killing this person."
posted
This emphasises one of the biggest problems with the abortion debate, and others. There are people who have serious moral and ethical opinions on abortion, who want an open debate on the value of a human fetus versus the value of a womans right to decide what to do with her body.
And they are continually overrun by those who change the debate from Pro-Live vs Pro-Choice to Pro-Sex vs Anti-Sex.
If we could remove the idea that pregnancy is the punishment for promiscuity--whether natural or divine--from this debate, perhaps we could talk to each other.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rien and Dag...and others who would agree with the no mental health exception...
All I have to say is that spending years living around people with major clinical depression has convinced me that the failure to consider the mental state of the mother is a grave mistake.
TX is trying a woman who drowned her children in a bathtub. Examine what her husband's attitudes were and think about her mental state. Tell me not about her options as you see them, but as she saw them.
That man is remarried, in his same church. That woman is going to a life behind bars, or death row. And the children she was basically forced to have are all dead. I don't see justice in this situation.
Dag, why should anyone base their opinion about mental health issues and abortion on a system of laws that allows this kind of injustice in the already existing laws?
Is there any way we can do better?
And let's talk to the children of women who were clinically depressed during their child rearing...
Honestly, I don't think our society is ready to make these decisions FOR people.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:TX is trying a woman who drowned her children in a bathtub. Examine what her husband's attitudes were and think about her mental state. Tell me not about her options as you see them, but as she saw them.
Exactly. Do we agree that the option she took shouldn't be legal? Note, this is not asking you to say whether her punishment was just. It's asking you to say whether the law should recognize the event as something it should not allow.
I presume you don't think drowning children in bathtubs should be made legal if the mental health of the mother is at stake. Given my premises, that's the exact same thing.
quote:Dag, why should anyone base their opinion about mental health issues and abortion on a system of laws that allows this kind of injustice in the already existing laws?
When the state allows the use of lethal force, the analysis should start from the perspective of the victim. And there should be a very high threshold for allowing such use of force.
In this case, the victim is in the only place she can survive. The victim has done nothing illegal or immoral to get there. She's simply where nature has ordained that she be.
quote:Is there any way we can do better?
Of course. Allowing homicide as a means to avoid depression isn't "better."
quote:Honestly, I don't think our society is ready to make these decisions FOR people.
The mother shouldn't be making the life or death decision for her child.
I'm honestly puzzled as to the relvance of the the mother drowning her children to what I posted above. That case can illustrate why we need better mental health resources in this country, including depression screening. It can illustrate the need for better premarital counseling. I suppose it could illustrate the need for establishing a spousal duty of mental care or finding a way to be more lenient in such cases. But to justify removing the protection of the law from one child just because that child failed several others? I just don't see it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But see, now you're going beyond the law to your own personal feelings.
quote:That case can illustrate why we need better mental health resources in this country, including depression screening.
And this is the point.
Until we have that, the abortion laws as proposed to date (that lack a mental health exemption) are just adding a cruelty ontop of all the other failings of our society on this issue.
But we tend to pass the laws first, and then adjust them...maybe...when the unintended consequences are found out.
I know you fail to see the relevance. And that's too bad. It doesn't mean the relevance isn't there. It just means that most people, and especially those interested in passing restrictive laws re: abortion, aren't thinking about the unintended consequences of their victory.
I think they should be thinking about it.
If I were trying to pass these laws, the issues of what happens to people who are stuck in bad situations would keep me up at night. Not because the overall saving of infant lives isn't wonderful, but because I was, by that same act, causing some situations to get much, much worse.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But see, now you're going beyond the law to your own personal feelings.
Bob, you asked "When people say they'll make an exception if the pregnancy would endanger the health of the mother, is mental health considered?" I assumed from that you'd want my thoughts on the subject. It's impossible for anyone to answer the question you proposed without relying on their premises for wanting to ban abortion.
If the reason I want to stop abortion is because I view it as homicide, then the only reason I would support a mental health exception is if I thought homicide should be allowed to prevent mental harm. I don't. Most people don't. This is not a radical idea once the starting premise is assumed.
That's not to say we can't have allow mental health to serve as a defense to the crime. But even when we allow mental health to excuse responsibility, we still try to stop homocides caused by mental disorders before they occur.
quote:Until we have that, the abortion laws as proposed to date (that lack a mental health exemption) are just adding a cruelty ontop of all the other failings of our society on this issue.
No, the abortion laws as proposed to date do more than "just add[] a cruelty ontop of all the other failings of our society on this issue." They also save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know you fail to see the relevance. And that's too bad. It doesn't mean the relevance isn't there. It just means that most people, and especially those interested in passing restrictive laws re: abortion, aren't thinking about the unintended consequences of their victory.
I think they should be thinking about it.
If I were trying to pass these laws, the issues of what happens to people who are stuck in bad situations would keep me up at night. Not because the overall saving of infant lives isn't wonderful, but because I was, by that same act, causing some situations to get much, much worse.
BTW, this makes me too angry to respond right now. I'll try to get to it later, but this takes what I said so out of context I'm having a hard time dealing with it right now.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Along those lines, there's something I've been wondering.
For everybody who's pro-life but thinks abortion is okay in a case of rape: Does the woman have to PROVE she was raped? If so, how? Because in my opinion, attempting to force a rape victim to file a police report is cruel.
-pH
I understand its rough to put a woman through that, but a woman NOT filing a police report is immoral. Increases the chances of more women going through what she did.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: This emphasises one of the biggest problems with the abortion debate, and others. There are people who have serious moral and ethical opinions on abortion, who want an open debate on the value of a human fetus versus the value of a womans right to decide what to do with her body.
And they are continually overrun by those who change the debate from Pro-Live vs Pro-Choice to Pro-Sex vs Anti-Sex.
If we could remove the idea that pregnancy is the punishment for promiscuity--whether natural or divine--from this debate, perhaps we could talk to each other.
I am not pro-sex or anti-sex and I really would like to have an open debate on abortion, but truely feel that women DO have the right to decide about their body, they have the right to decide whether to have sex or not.
I do not feel that pregnancy is a punishment for promiscuity, it happens much more often in a committed relationship anyway. Pregnancy IS a consequence of sex, and you should not divorce it from the reason it came about. THAT is why women feel that they deserve a choice, because they don't realize that choice came when they decided to have sex. And the reason they don't realize it is because the current culture so often divorces sex from pregnancy already.
Posts: 44 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:a lady that had my seed growing in her belly...
This is quaint. Do you really use such terminology IRL?
Sorry to derail even more, but I was just tickled to read this phrase.
yeah, i've said that to my girlfriend, but more often we talk about my seed swimming in the pool of her navel.
and all of this pro-life stuff is based on the assumption that life is sacred, right? i don't really think it is. life is only sacred to the people that love the person living. to everyone else, it doesn't really matter all that much. i mean, if i cried for every person that died, well, i'd be dehydrated after a day. many more people die each day (and i mean grown people that realize that they are alive and have people that love them) from any given number of causes that could be prevented (namely war) than from abortion. when i die, i won't care. the assumption here, with pro-life, is that when a living being dies, regardless of mental capacity, it matters. that is an assumption based on religion as far as i can tell. for that reason i feel like not allowing someone to have an abortion is forcing your religion on them.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How exactly do you get movements like this (and feminist movements and whatnot) without forming a political party? And what is a Lobby?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: life is only sacred to the people that love the person living. ... the assumption here, with pro-life, is that when a living being dies, regardless of mental capacity, it matters. that is an assumption based on religion as far as i can tell. for that reason i feel like not allowing someone to have an abortion is forcing your religion on them.
So, in a general sense, do you think it's fine to kill people who aren't loved by anyone?
I think you're conflating two things. The idea that the value of someone's life is solely a funciton of the value placed on it by individual members of society (vice some inherent value), and the idea that "value" is only a function of love (thus only people who are loved have value). I'd say both are wrong, although I think the first is debatable. But the idea that if someone isn't loved they have no value is absurd.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: now this is gonna sound like i'm being evasive, and that's because i am. i honestly don't think that i, having a wang between my legs, have any right to say anything about how, when, or why a woman does anything at all with whats between her legs.
now if we were talking about a lady that had my seed growing in her belly, i would take an interest and do all in my verbal power to stop her from having an abortion. but if she really wanted to have it at any time during her pregnancy, i wouldn't stop her. if it were at such a point that i thought that it was barbaric, i would never speak to her again, but i wouldn't stop her.
in conclusion, i would not accept such a restriction, but only because it is not my place to accept or not accept it.
See, and that's what I don't get. Because a fetus is not part of a woman's body. It's genetically a distinct individual. I personally don't think that it can be considered human until it develops to a certain stage, and even then, I think that it has a lesser status than a baby that has been born, but once you have a fetus that could live on its own, then I don't think it can anymore be considered "what's between her legs".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SenojRetep: Let me try to clarify. I am not saying that the person's life is sacred because someone else loves them, but that those are the only people that the life is sacred to. Let me try to give an incredibly extreme example: If everyone on the planet died, it wouldn't matter at all because there wouldn't be anyone to notice. ie: life only matters if someone else cares. hmm, i don't think that clarified anything at all.
starLisa: "a fetus that could live on its own" - i don't get this. no fetus could live on its own. even brought to full term, it need someone else to help it live. the exception of course being Bean.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
A lobby is a group of people who attempt to influence lawmakers. They usually have "special interests," meaning that they are focused on a single issue (e.g. keeping abortion legal, banning same-sex marriage, etc.) To be a good lobbiest you must know lots of influential people, have access to lots of money, and not get caught being sleazy.
Here's an article on how to become a lobbiest.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Pertaining to abortion, here's the thing that I don't understand. If both sides can admit that we don't really know when life begins - then isn't the pro-life position the best one to take?
To a certain extent, yes. But I think that as responsible human beings, we have to determine when life begins ourselves. Is a person with no brain activity alive or dead? Is a person with no brain alive or dead? Is a person with brain activity and no heartbeat alive or dead?
These are all things we have to decide, and we have to decide them in a way that isn't akin to a latter-day crusade.
And there's another issue. If the mother's life is in danger, then you have to decide whose live takes precedence. So even if the fetus is a full-fledged human being, you wind up having to decide who lives and who dies. So the question of "alive or not" isn't always enough of a criterion.
In Jewish law, we have a law that says, "if one comes to kill you, rise up and kill him". The impact of this law is that if A is endangering the life of B and the only way to save B is to kill A, you kill A. In the case of abortion where the mother's life is in danger, this applies.
What I find interesting about those pro-lifers who oppose abortion even in such cases (and while not all pro-lifers do, a significant percentage of them do) is that people who would never stand by and watch Tom murder Harry will not only stand by and watch Fetal Tom murder Harriet, but will do their utmost to prevent anyone from saving Harriet. All in the name of being "pro-life".
That's what I mean by the two extremes sucking. On the one end of the spectrum, you have people who would try, by force, to prevent Harriet from being saved, all in the name of "life". And on the other end, you have people who would be willing to allow a child as developed as my daughter to have been killed, all in the name of "choice".
Both of those seem absurd to me.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: See, this is why I don't think it's really all about the "When life begins" question. I think it's more about "When does the fetuses' right to life trump the mother's rights to control her own body and choose when she wants to have children?"
Well, I don't think a case can properly be made, outside of religious dogma, that a fetus at 2 weeks is a living person. And I have a problem with using religious concepts to force people in a society like America to do anything at all.
quote:Originally posted by vonk: ie: life only matters if someone else cares.
My point is that this is different than if someone loves them. I can care what happens to someone without loving them, because their life affects <edit> or even has the potential to affect </edit> mine in some way. I don't "love" my political representatives, but I have an interest in them living because I value the job they do (actually, given my representatives...)
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like abortion. You are killing something that would have lived. I think people need to more responsible about sex. I don't know when life begins, but I do know that all the vital organs are in place by the end of the first trimester. EC doesn't bother me- there's no baby the day after the condom breaks, we can say that can't we? EC needs to be available. Period. You can't prevent people from having sex- you can make some teenagers less likely to have it- but the people in this generation didn't invent sex or sneaking about to have it. They didn't invent abortion nor were they the first people to want them. You can ban safe abortions, but you can't ban coat hangers. I don't like the relgious right telling people what to do with their bodies just as much as I don't like abortions. These abortion laws are made by people who have probably never been in the unwanted baby situtation. I haven't either, but I've read enough stories about it to know that you can't make the decision for other people. If the relgious right wants to tell people how to live their lives, why don't they actually help them out? Instead of picketing Planned Parenthood and slashing tires of abortion counselors, why not use the spare time and lobby money (cheiros- you would pay a lobbiest to pester Congress about a certain issue to convice them that, say, abortion is bad) set up a program for the girls who get pregnant in their town or in their church? If these people regard life so highly, why not offer the right combination of scholarships, and child care that would allow a pregant young person to have her baby and finish high school or college while being able to keep the child. Women want abortions because babies shatter academic futures. They see a baby as something that ruins a life, not as a gift from God. Pro-life people should save lives by making the choice to have the baby seem attractive and actually be feasible.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The impact of this law is that if A is endangering the life of B and the only way to save A is to kill B, you kill B. In the case of abortion where the mother's life is in danger, this applies.
ok, so mothers life is in danger, so Mother = B, then Baby = A. so: If Baby is endagering the life of Mother and the only way to save Baby is to kill Mother, you kill Mother.
i don't know how to spell the sound that Scooby Doo makes when he's confused, but you get the idea.
SenojRetep: yeah, i think that line didn't really fit in with my argument. can i just say that i don't think that assigning something or someone "life" is the be all and end all of whether they should exist or not?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I find interesting about those pro-lifers who oppose abortion even in such cases (and while not all pro-lifers do, a significant percentage of them do) is that people who would never stand by and watch Tom murder Harry will not only stand by and watch Fetal Tom murder Harriet, but will do their utmost to prevent anyone from saving Harriet. All in the name of being "pro-life".
I'd be interested in your source for this. What do you consider a significant percentage?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: can i just say that i don't think that assigning something or someone "life" is the be all and end all of whether they should exist or not?
You certainly can. It does break somewhat from the idea that we are all entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But then, they're really just guidelines.
Honestly, I probably agree with you. I don't believe all life is sacred. Or, rather, I believe all life is sacred, but being sacred does not imply that its continuance is inviolate. Only that ending it should be approached with caution, reservation, and circumspection. And that society should guarantee that when it isn't approached with appropriate gravity, the offender is held responsible for his/her callousness.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, if you say that pregnancy can be damaging to a person's mental health, have you considered that abortion may be equally or more damaging?
In your work with clinically depressed people, have you ever talked with a woman dealing with severe post-abortion trauma and depression? Because I have. Not professionally, but as a volunteer in post-abortion ministries.
If a pregnancy can be devastating emotionally to a person, I fail to see how an abortion is going to make things all better. I've yet to meet someone who told me "I regret I had my child." I have met many who deeply regretted their abortions.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've yet to meet someone who told me "I regret I had my child."
i've never heard anyone say that to me, but i've heard friends tell me about their parents saying it to them. as i recall, it didn't make them feel too hot.
quote:Only that ending it should be approached with caution, reservation, and circumspection. And that society should guarantee that when it isn't approached with appropriate gravity, the offender is held responsible for his/her callousness.
all right, i agree with you there, but only tentatively. i don't think anyone should have to sacrifice their personal happiness and well being so that someone else can live.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: starLisa: "a fetus that could live on its own" - i don't get this. no fetus could live on its own. even brought to full term, it need someone else to help it live. the exception of course being Bean.
Oh, come on. There are people who can't live on their own as well. A two week old fetus cannot in any way, under any circumstances, survive and grow into a human being outside of the womb. A 32 week old fetus can. Hell, a 26 week old fetus can. It happens all the time.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The impact of this law is that if A is endangering the life of B and the only way to save A is to kill B, you kill B. In the case of abortion where the mother's life is in danger, this applies.
ok, so mothers life is in danger, so Mother = B, then Baby = A. so: If Baby is endagering the life of Mother and the only way to save Baby is to kill Mother, you kill Mother.
Fine, I miswrote it. Tell me you don't know what I meant.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I find interesting about those pro-lifers who oppose abortion even in such cases (and while not all pro-lifers do, a significant percentage of them do) is that people who would never stand by and watch Tom murder Harry will not only stand by and watch Fetal Tom murder Harriet, but will do their utmost to prevent anyone from saving Harriet. All in the name of being "pro-life".
I'd be interested in your source for this. What do you consider a significant percentage?
Hmm... let's see:
2003 Gallup Poll says 18% of Americans polled wouldn't make an exception for the mother's life being in danger.
You should be aware that some portion of those 5% almost certainly believe that treatment that results in the death of the child should be permitted. The poll is imprecise in its phraseing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
There's a huge gulf between wanting to counsel people and wanting to pass laws that could lead to them being charged with murder if they choose to have an abortion.
What I'm saying is that in the rush to pass restrictive laws we should be mindful of the effect on people who might be in precarious situations or mental states.
I personally favor an exemption from restrictions on abortion for mental problems precisely because we have such a poor record of dealing with mental health issues in this country and I do feel as if the laws I've seen proposed so far would not address this issue adequately (if at all). Where's the counseling component? Where's the free or low-cost mental health services? Where's the increase in funding for safe havens for women and girls who need to get out of abusive situations? Heck, where are the sexual abuse prevention programs?
We're very good in this country at setting the punishments, but very bad at offering assistance to the people who really need it.
I, for one, think it's a supremely bad idea to set up people for potential murder charges and not make darn sure first that we have, as a society, reduced the likelihood of people getting into bad situations in the first place, or in finding themselves stuck once they are in a bad situation.
I know there are those who will argue that there are "plenty" of social services out there. I think the facts are otherwise. And, more to the point, I suspect that the people who discount the need for social services are doing so because they don't have good answers to THOSE problems and don't want to have to deal with them first, or in conjunction with putting all the restrictions in place.
Because it makes it too difficult, too costly, or requires us to acknowledge how colosally screwed up our society is with respect to mental health issues and sexual abuse -- especially abuse by spouses, people in authority, or family friends (essentially anything BUT abuse perpetrated by strangers -- a pitifully small percentage of the overall problem).
By the way, I don't see this as just involving the issue of abortion. This society is frequently finding itself paying the price for rapidly going for the punitive law and thinking that we've implemented a real solution.
We're great at devising the punishments in this country. We suck at recognizing the possible problems or reasonable solutions.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, I agree with your conclusions but I think your principle
quote:The impact of this law is that if A is endangering the life of B and the only way to save A is to kill B, you kill B.
can't be correct as it stands.
After all, what if I'm endangering your life not intentionally, but by carrying some kind of deadly disease that might infect you? Should I then be killed (supposing there's no other way to isolate me)?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chungwa: Women don't realize that pregnancy comes from the choice to have sex?
Wow.
Men don't realize that pregnancy comes from the choice to have sex?
Wow.
While people may realize it, they don't think about it often or only after the fact, if at all unless they are TRYING to concieve. And I believe that the majority of the population feels that if they are using birth control pregnancy is certainly not going to happen to THEM.
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: [QUOTE] Pro-life people should save lives by making the choice to have the baby seem attractive and actually be feasible
I completely agree! Adoption should be pushed as a viable, attractive alternative. I plan on doing all I can to promote it. My parents took in an unwed mother who whas giving up her child for adoption for her pregnancy when I was a child. I remember it as a very positive thing and would like to do something like that in the future.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Or, rather, I believe all life is sacred, but being sacred does not imply that its continuance is inviolate. Only that ending it should be approached with caution, reservation, and circumspection. And that society should guarantee that when it isn't approached with appropriate gravity, the offender is held responsible for his/her callousness.
I agree, it is not as if there is never, ever a reason for abortion, but it should not be elective based on personal or social convienence and the government should be able to uphold that. It is the government's job to protect it's future citizens that is why there are so many laws in place pertaining to children. And if a parent cannot or will not care for their child it is taken away as soon as possible, but the parent is responsible for any abuse or death that occures before the child can be taken. Just like if someone finds them self with an unwanted pregnancy they must care for the child and be responsible for it until the state can take it.
quote:Originally posted by vonk: don't think anyone should have to sacrifice their personal happiness and well being so that someone else can live.
So, if someone who decided they wanted a child, but when it got here felt it was too much, not what they expected, and become deeply depressed then they should be allowed, by law to kill that child? Do you really think that would make the person feel better anyway?
Posts: 44 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
are those the only choices? to either be unhappy or kill the child? i don't think so. i think another choice would be to let someone else raise the child. or to stop the child from ever existing in the first place (and i do not think that is the same thing as killing)
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: starLisa, I agree with your conclusions but I think your principle
quote:The impact of this law is that if A is endangering the life of B and the only way to save A is to kill B, you kill B.
can't be correct as it stands.
After all, what if I'm endangering your life not intentionally, but by carrying some kind of deadly disease that might infect you? Should I then be killed (supposing there's no other way to isolate me)?
We're talking about a direct danger. If you have Ebola and won't stay at a safe distance, I believe I'm morally justified in shooting you dead, if that's what I need to do to keep you back.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you have Ebola and won't stay at a safe distance, I believe I'm morally justified in shooting you dead, if that's what I need to do to keep you back.
But again, sounds like it's intentional on my part. What if we're locked in a cell together?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: Along those lines, there's something I've been wondering.
For everybody who's pro-life but thinks abortion is okay in a case of rape: Does the woman have to PROVE she was raped? If so, how? Because in my opinion, attempting to force a rape victim to file a police report is cruel.
-pH
I understand its rough to put a woman through that, but a woman NOT filing a police report is immoral. Increases the chances of more women going through what she did.
Woooooow. So you advocate, what....guilting and shaming women into reporting rape?
Yeah, that sounds like an awesome idea.
I just...I really, really can't get too far into this subject because it upsets me to no end.
It's ridiculously cruel to attempt to FORCE a woman to file a police report for sexual assault and then perhaps have to go through a trial, among any other number of things. And calling it "immoral" that she might choose not to do so is...quite frankly, disgusting to me.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
