quote:That "cessation of suffering?" Also known as "morphine."
Who is getting the short end of the stick here? The parents who get to see their baby die slowly under the influence of heavy drugs or the baby, who gets a bewildering, drawn out moment of horror in a drug-addled, incomplete mind?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oops! Don't know how I managed that. I think because both summon up images of fuzzy creatures.
Anyway, I think I've spent enough of my life in this thread now. I think it's pretty clear that neither side will convince the other and I've got a piano to practice .
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's pretty clear that neither side will convince the other
I don't know about that. I've learned a lot from both sides. The goal isn't necessarily convincing, but opening people's minds and learning something.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's pretty clear that neither side will convince the other
I don't know about that. I've learned a lot from both sides. The goal isn't necessarily convincing, but opening people's minds and learning something.
The purpose of having an open mind is to eventually close it on the truth. It is not an end in itself.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I'm not touching the creepy 'hope' thing with a stick.
quote:I don't agree that such stories as Mrs. M's are needed to make full humans.
Let us clarify: Do you object to this particular form of hard choice, or to the general idea that there must be the possibility of suffering?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi, I'm also very much a fan of choice. Like I said way early on in the thread, because I can think of good reasons to have an abortion (rape, abuse, immediate danger to mother), I think the government needs to butt out.
However, I feel myself getting a little more conservative with the idea of a late-term abortions. I don't even know if it's enough to really make me campaign for legal changes, but like I said, the whole thing just makes me very uncomfortable. The choice is, I think, something manufactured, because no one can really be sure that 25-week old fetus will have the horrible side effects doctors determine them to have. Someday technology may give that surety, but in the meantime I cannot condone Dr. Tiller's actions as noble. It makes me wish that every single late-term abortion were accounted for, along with a full autopsy, and that a doctor's license should be on the table every single time he performs such a procedure to ensure that it really was necessary.
This isn't to say that I don't think OB-Gs should be very knowledgeable about late term abortions (which I'm pretty sure they already are) -- sometimes a mother is so sick that you really, really, don't have time to do a C-section, and if the mother wants to be saved and both are going to die if you do nothing, you should save the mother. In those life-and-death situations, the doctor needs to have the tools necessary to deal with it. Like I said, this is why I think the government needs to butt out -- they have nothing to help that situation, and would only harm it.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's pretty clear that neither side will convince the other
I don't know about that. I've learned a lot from both sides. The goal isn't necessarily convincing, but opening people's minds and learning something.
The purpose of having an open mind is to eventually close it on the truth. It is not an end in itself.
Hrm, that's a pretty odd thing to say. If you ever close it, having concluded that you know the truth, you won't know if a better truth comes along. You need to keep it open toward the end of not holding on to false beliefs; you're not ever done.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's pretty clear that neither side will convince the other
I don't know about that. I've learned a lot from both sides. The goal isn't necessarily convincing, but opening people's minds and learning something.
The purpose of having an open mind is to eventually close it on the truth. It is not an end in itself.
The point of having an open mind is to try to arrive at the best conclusion. The moment you close it on anything, you lose perspective and credibility. Because if the conclusion you have reached really is the best, then considering other points of view will never change it anyway.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not touching the creepy 'hope' thing with a stick.
Okay-- you could alleviate a lot of suffering in the world if you gassed all the poor and starving in third world countries.
If the alleviation of suffering by termination is your bag, what's wrong with carrying this out? Likely, things aren't going to change for them, right? They're just going to keep on suffering, miserable, until they die, and their death won't bring anything noble or beautiful or exalting to the world. It won't change anything.
quote:Do you object to this particular form of hard choice, or to the general idea that there must be the possibility of suffering?
"Object" isn't the right word. I don't think that making the specific sacrifice Mrs M made, in her specific situation, is necessary to make full humans.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It makes me wish that every single late-term abortion were accounted for, along with a full autopsy, and that a doctor's license should be on the table every single time he performs such a procedure to ensure that it really was necessary.
This might sound like it's coming out of left field, but: would you be okay with requiring this much documentation from torturers, saying "okay, torture can be legal, but you have to be willing to stake your license and perhaps your freedom on your ability to flawlessly document the necessity of this procedure before you can torment this human being?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to take torture off the table completely, and throw the practitioners in jail.
I recognize the need for some late term abortions (with all the caveats I've expressed in this thread).
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:This isn't to say that I don't think OB-Gs should be very knowledgeable about late term abortions (which I'm pretty sure they already are) -- sometimes a mother is so sick that you really, really, don't have time to do a C-section, and if the mother wants to be saved and both are going to die if you do nothing, you should save the mother.
C-sections are, if I'm not mistaken, much faster than a partial-birth abortion or D&E. A D&E requires the cervix to be dilated, the baby maneuvered into a breech position, then the body delivered while the head is still intact. The head is then collapsed so it is smaller, and the delivery is completed.
I would be very surprised to learn that an emergency c-section takes more time than that procedure. I also would be very surprised to learn that a c-section would ever be deemed to be so much more dangerous than a D&E that the c-section would endanger the mother's life whereas the D&E would not.
I do agree that the mother's life should be saved if both are dying. I also think Mrs. M should have the choice to put her baby's life above her own, and people who wish to do things like delay chemo for a pregnancy should be allowed to do so. But if a mother is truly endangered by her pregnancy, then there should be an ability to save that mother. I will not argue that point...if the mother dies presumably the baby will too so it's best to save one life than sacrifice two.
However, if the baby is viable then I believe the baby should be delivered rather than aborted. That then leads into where we draw the line at viability. Tough question, because it changes all the time. Three years ago that would have been drawn at around 25 weeks, but now babies at 24 have survived. The record for the youngest gestation age to survive to discharge from the hospital is 21 weeks.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It makes me wish that every single late-term abortion were accounted for, along with a full autopsy, and that a doctor's license should be on the table every single time he performs such a procedure to ensure that it really was necessary.
This might sound like it's coming out of left field, but: would you be okay with requiring this much documentation from torturers, saying "okay, torture can be legal, but you have to be willing to stake your license and perhaps your freedom on your ability to flawlessly document the necessity of this procedure before you can torment this human being?"
While some people may equate abortion doctors with torturers, I have to admit I do not. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Belle, I'm not really sure myself why a late-term abortion can be preferable to a c-section in the event of a very high-risk event during pregnancy. I've read a few anecdotes mostly, but nothing concrete. But should the option be necessary, I'm mostly saying that doctors should be skilled and safe.
Edit: Tom, thinking about this some more, I really, really can't equate the two. I can think of situations where an abortion, maybe even a late-term abortion, is necessary for the health and well-being of the mother. As devastating as it can be, I don't think it's wrong in 100% of cases.
I can't be convinced at all that torture is *ever* necessary. If someone deeply thinks that torturing someone will give them x information that will save y amount of lives, even if they they get it and save them, they should still go to jail/whatever punishment the powers that be give him. Because it's still unequivocally wrong. If they want to make that sacrifice it's their choice, but I think pretending that it's okay ever is a worse problem.
My statement about abortion doctors was a feeble proposal, in my mind, to keep doctors in check, and keep them from having too much power in the situation. Accountability and transparency. If a doctor feels very strongly about his decision to perform a late-term abortion, I think he should be held accountable. Just like if a patient dies under his care.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If the alleviation of suffering by termination is your bag, what's wrong with carrying this out? Likely, things aren't going to change for them, right? They're just going to keep on suffering, miserable, until they die, and their death won't bring anything noble or beautiful or exalting to the world. It won't change anything.
Humans with functioning brains are not ever pure suffering-machines with nothing to do but process pain. Even the most miserable African peasant will occasionally have a full stomach, sex with someone he loves, children he can be proud of. None of this is true of a newborn with just enough brainstem to feel pain.
quote:"Object" isn't the right word. I don't think that making the specific sacrifice Mrs M made, in her specific situation, is necessary to make full humans.
Ah so. And what makes this specific choice different from the other painful choices that are necessary for full humanity?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only do I oppose killing children who can live outside the womb, I oppose killing people with terminal illnesses (even if they beg), I oppose capital punishment, and I definitely oppose killing disabled people "for their own good."
It isn't a Sophie's choice. When it comes how to handle a loved one with a difficult condition, killing them shouldn't even be on the table.
I see no difference between killing a child two weeks before his due date and two weeks after his due date. Abortions after the baby is viable is exactly the same as Spartan fathers leaving unwanted children on a hillside to die.
I haven't heard anyone give a good justification for it yet that wouldn't also apply to newborn. For those that think killing children that can survive outside the mother is perfectly okay, do you also think killing children who already are outside is also okay?
quote:Abortions after the baby is viable is exactly the same as Spartan fathers leaving unwanted children on a hillside to die.
Maybe the motivations are similar in rare cases.
quote:For those that think killing children that can survive outside the mother is perfectly okay,
I do not think anyone has taken this position. That you think anyone in this thread is perfectly OK with killing full term fetuses is confusing to me, and it bothers me that you don't put more effort into understanding people with whom you argue, yet complain about the reverse all the time (I'll be OK, though, it's not a HUGE bother).
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
" For those that think killing children that can survive outside the mother is perfectly okay, do you also think killing children who already are outside is also okay?
If not, why not? "
No. First, I don't think late term abortion or even any abortion is "perfectly ok," nor do I think ""Regrettable" but okay enough to support it," is an accurate description of my opinion. Not many people, and certainly no one here, is "ok with," abortion, nor do we "support it". But I do think there are valid reasons to have late term abortion legal, but not post-natal killings. Several reasons:
First, its not necessarily a child until its outside the mother. It COULD be a child, but personhood is a socially constructed idea. The only society that a fetus exists in is the society made up of the mother, and the fetus. And the fetus is destructive of the mother's body, and 100% reliant on the body of the mother for its continued existence. This means, from my perspective, that the only person who has a say in whether or not the fetus is a child is the mother.
Second, Its the mother's body and resources being used to keep the fetus alive, and any decisions about how her body can be used are ultimately her's alone (assuming mental competency and capacity, etc). A child outside the womb is not reliant upon the mother to nearly the same degree that a 36 week fetus is. The reliance, in fact, is no longer of the same kind. The line of birth is not an imaginary line in this conversation.
Third, Because a non-imaginary line has been crossed, there is now a much broader group of people making up the society within which the infant exists, and it is reasonable for that community to make decisions about personhood and the right to life and how that right balances against other rights.
Fourth, The government ability to force someone to not undergo a medical procedure is the same as the government ability to force someone to undergo a medical procedure. The flip side of banning abortion, even late term abortions, is the ability of the government to require abortions. Government shouldn't be involved in these decisions, because of the reasons above and the general principle that government shouldn't be involved in forcing a person to make a particular medical decision.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I would like to see what you think the fundamental difference between a living being two weeks before the due date and two weeks after the due date that is great enough to killing one okay and the other not. "We just don't know." isn't a good answer - it is not something that is unknowable, and pretending that we don't or can't know simply avoids the issue.
Second, the point is that the child is viable outside the womb. He or she doesn't have to be dependent on the mother for existence. Since the child certainly can exist outside the mother, keeping it inside the mother in order to make killing it okay is an unethical option.
If the mother doesn't want her body to feed or take care of it anymore, deliver it.
Third, a newborn two minutes after birth is known about by the same people who were aware of its existence two minutes before birth. How big does the circle of aquaintance need to get before killing them is bad? Is the killing of a child who lives in the back woods less abhorrent than one who lives in a city? What about a home-schooled child versus one at a public school?
Technology has expanded viability and society beyond birth.
Fourth, the government steps in all the time concerning what medical procedures can and can't be done. We don't have to pretend that government intervention into the legality of medical procedures is all or nothing and that we are incapable of making decisions in the gray area.
There is even a line that can be decided according to science - at what stage of a development can a human being exist outside of the mother?
That's the line where abortion changes from a morally-repugnant thing to flat-out murder. The mother and child can be separated. Choosing death instead for the one who can't speak for himself is wrong.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's impossible to discuss abortion if pro-lifers don't recognize that nobody is actually "pro-abortion." It's like saying somebody is "pro-amputation" or "pro-mutilation" when it comes to surgery. People who think abortions may be justified don't love the idea of an abortion happening. No feminist group is going to look at abortions as the quintessential form of women's rights.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, I would like to see what you think the fundamental difference between a living being two weeks before the due date and two weeks after the due date that is great enough to killing one okay and the other not.
What is the fundamental difference between a living being two weeks before its due date and another living being ten weeks before its due date? Twelve weeks?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, at least, it isn't so much a question of whether or not a late term fetus has rights. It is the fact that those rights don't exist in a vacuum. While in utero, those rights are in balance with and sometimes in conflict with someone else's rights.
I do think that, barring serious risk to the mother, viable fetuses should be delivered if possible.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I would like to see what you think the fundamental difference between a living being two weeks before the due date and two weeks after the due date that is great enough to killing one okay and the other not."
The complete dependence upon another person's body, with or without the consent of that person.
"Second, the point is that the child is viable outside the womb. He or she doesn't have to be dependent on the mother for existence. "
Sure. But how do you get the fetus out of the womb? That's a medical decision, and until there is a way to get the fetus out of the womb with no medical complications, the choice of which procedure to undergo doesn't belong in the governments hands.
"Third, a newborn two minutes after birth is known about by the same people who were aware of its existence two minutes before birth. How big does the circle of aquaintance need to get before killing them is bad? "
I didn't say acqaintances.
"Fourth, the government steps in all the time concerning what medical procedures can and can't be done."
There's an interesting tangent here that I don't really want to get into. Suffice it to say, I don't think the government should ever make a medical decision for me. "There is even a line that can be decided according to science - at what stage of a development can a human being exist outside of the mother?
That's the line where abortion changes from a morally-repugnant thing to flat-out murder. The mother and child can be separated. Choosing death instead for the one who can't speak for himself is wrong. "
You have to completely violate another person's body in order to enforce your conceptions of what a person is. That makes your conception of what a child is wrong, and enforcing your conception is no less morally repugnant or wrong (Actually, I think its more repugnant and wrong) than aborting a fetus late term without medical reason is. (This section written in the manner it was due to the way katharina's post was written).
"I do think that, barring serious risk to the mother, viable fetuses should be delivered if possible"
Sure. If the mother is made aware of the risks of both procedures, and chooses to deliver, this is the morally preferably outcome. But she shouldn't be forced to choose an emergency c-section over dilation and extraction, because all the risks are taken of either surgery are taken by her.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What BlackBlade said....pretty much. I DO think that some people think that the right to CHOOSE to have one is one of the most fundamental rights.....not because they are pro-abortion, but because they feel a woman has a right to decide what happens to her own body, and such right is fundamental to all humans.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think it's impossible to discuss abortion if pro-lifers don't recognize that nobody is actually "pro-abortion." It's like saying somebody is "pro-amputation" or "pro-mutilation" when it comes to surgery. People who think abortions may be justified don't love the idea of an abortion happening. No feminist group is going to look at abortions as the quintessential form of women's rights.
Thank you, BlackBlade. Sometimes in the midst of these discussions, this fact gets lost.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Not only do I oppose killing children who can live outside the womb, I oppose killing people with terminal illnesses (even if they beg), I oppose capital punishment, and I definitely oppose killing disabled people "for their own good."
I don't see why it's so bad to help someone die if they are begging for it, especially if they are mentally competent to make that decision for themself. Not to do so seems cruel. Of course, that gets into an entire new topic.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "I do think that, barring serious risk to the mother, viable fetuses should be delivered if possible"
Sure. If the mother is made aware of the risks of both procedures, and chooses to deliver, this is the morally preferably outcome. But she shouldn't be forced to choose an emergency c-section over dilation and extraction, because all the risks are taken of either surgery are taken by her.
That one was me. I agree. "Should" in that case did not mean "should be legally required to".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'ma bow out now. When people tell me I've said something well, its best to quit while still at least even Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What is the fundamental difference between a living being two weeks before its due date and another living being ten weeks before its due date? Twelve weeks?
quote:None of this is true of a newborn with just enough brainstem to feel pain.
Even a child on sleeping on morphine so that it doesn't suffer can be held, loved, and cherished in the small amount of time that it may have to live.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:None of this is true of a newborn with just enough brainstem to feel pain.
Even a child on sleeping on morphine so that it doesn't suffer can be held, loved, and cherished in the small amount of time that it may have to live.
And for this you would accept how much risk to the mother? Say, a ten percent chance of dying? One percent? Half a percent?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And more importantly...why should how much YOU are willing to risk matter to the mother and father who has to make this type of horrible decision?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What is the fundamental difference between a living being two weeks before its due date and another living being ten weeks before its due date? Twelve weeks?
Um, no. Eight weeks.
Given that the question was "two weeks before the due date and two weeks after the due date," the fundamental difference is that one is inside its mother's body, and the other is not.
[ June 04, 2009, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Glenn Arnold ]
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:None of this is true of a newborn with just enough brainstem to feel pain.
Even a child on sleeping on morphine so that it doesn't suffer can be held, loved, and cherished in the small amount of time that it may have to live.
And for this you would accept how much risk to the mother? Say, a ten percent chance of dying? One percent? Half a percent?
I've already talked about how I feel about danger to the mother. I'm not going to put a percentage on it.
quote:This is true, but is pretty orthogonal to the rights of the child.
I had to look up the word orthogonal-- it's a mathematical term, according to dictionary.com, meaning (largely) 'perpendicular.' Thank you for expanding my vocabulary.
The alternative is to kill the child. That abrogates more of the child's rights than letting it live and be loved, for however long it may be able to.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think scifibum's position was that when a child is only going to be alive for a few hours and is going to spend that time with heavily drugged, it's capacity for experiencing love is essentially nonexistent. (Even assuming I'm understanding scifibum's position, I realize this is going to come down to fundamentally different views on what love is and why/when it is worthwhile, which no amount of arguing can address)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Disclaimer: this is a hodge podge of secondhand information I haven't carefully studied or thought out.
I don't think Love is an inherently valuable metaphysical thing, I think it's a form of expression that has value because it has tangible positive effects on human development.
In the case of newborns, I remember reading a while back that newborns that are frequently hugged develop better than those that are not. I'm not sure the newborn necessarily cares WHY it's getting hugged, but it at least can experience some form of positive emotion from being cuddled and cared for. This is meaningful partly because in the short term the baby is happier, but mostly, in my mind, because the long term benefits it (and it's parents and eventually peers) will reap from the experience.
A doped up child that will die within days won't be experiencing that pleasure and more importantly will not grow up to impact the human race in any way. The only people who are gaining anything are the parents. If those parents feel that those few hours are precious, that's wonderful. But not everyone may feel that way.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: ANY newborn-- healthy or not-- cannot "experience love" the way that a more developed human being can.
SO...can you define what you mean by "experience love?"
I think the parents may be able to experience love in this case, but I don't think the newborn would. They can shower love and affection, and essentially mourn the loss of all their hopes and dreams on the tiny being that will never be a fully formed human being, but I doubt seriously that the baby gets anything out of that.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not all parents are good parents. We don't kill a child because its parents suck.
Again, this is obviously a fundamental disagreement on reality, but I do not think ANYTHING has value simply because it does. Not life. Not love. Not humanity. I consider sentient life valuable because it can experience pleasure and suffering (and nonsentient life is valuable because it plays an important role in that pleasure and suffering). Humans are valuable because they have cognitive abilities beyond that of most animals - I believe we can experience a wider range of happiness and suffering than many (but not all) animals, and our creative abilities mean we have potential to do things that might be valuable for reasons I can't even predict. Love is valuable because it is one of the most powerful forms of happiness we can achieve.
In general, it is valuable to take things that are usually true and live our lives by them, because we'd go crazy trying to look at every single example all the time. But it is also valuable NOT to get locked into a particular way of thinking, that just because something is usually true it must always be.
Infants are usually valuable because the grow up and have a wide range of personal happiness and add to the sum human experience. Parents who are willing to sacrifice everything for their children are usually valuable because without that kind of love, children would get abandoned and the human race would suffer.
When an infant is going to die within days, when the only pleasure it will receive is from heavy drugging, then I do not believe it makes you a fundamentally bad parent to be unwilling to sacrifice for them.
That does not mean I think Mrs. M's mindset was wrong. For her (and I assume her family), her willingness to sacrifice gave her a powerful sense of purpose and closeness with her child. It's fine to have that mindset, but I do not think it is fine to try and force that mindset upon others.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Put another way: I do not think a parent's job is to love their child unconditionally. I think a parent's job is to help their child grow up to be the best person they can be. Unconditional love is a incredibly important part of that. But not for a child that you know for a fact is not going to last long enough to achieve even the basics of the cognition that separates humans from chipmunks.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not think ANYTHING has value simply because it does. Not life. Not love. Not humanity.
Aha. You're right. Our views on what is valuable differ.
quote:Unconditional love is a incredibly important part of that. But not for a child that you know for a fact is not going to last long enough to achieve even the basics of the cognition that separates humans from chipmunks.
Yep. We disagree. Mightily.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yupper. (While I am participating in this debate for fun, I have long since stopped looking at abortion arguments as something "winnable," for precisely this reason)
Edit: (Or more accurately, when I do get into an abortion argument, I define "winning" as getting the people on the opposition to realize what fundamental, insurmountable differences there are, and why. Depending on whether you already understood that, I might have just "won," but I think most people in this thread are already pretty aware of how pointless an abortion debate is)
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do the pro-lifers here respond to women who say things like this?
quote:Who else doesn't own my uterus? A fetus. Any fetus, ever. Even embryos do not own my uterus. I understand this is difficult for you to grasp; a fetus is after all a potential life, and there are American voters--some of them who might even vote for you--who think that as a potential life a fetus has a right to move into my body and not be evicted. I however am not a potential life. I am an actual life, a real living human being, a woman. No one and nothing is allowed to take up residence in my body without my consent. This is kind of like how you can't show up at an apartment, summarily move in, and demand the property owner let you stay there as long as you would like. It is also kind of like how you can't demand someone lend you their kidney for nine months. I, as a sovereign human being, have the right to deny access to any part of my body at any time. I also have, as a sovereign human being, the right to make that decision on my own, regardless of what my family, doctor, and pastor think.
(I've heard this view from many people; I just picked this woman as a representative example.)
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
