to turn it off.
> Except in case of a serious health threat to the mother's life I don't
> think abortion is ever right (if it's your life versus someone else's
> then you have the right to defend it at any cost IMO). As Vern said, you
> can usually avoid becoming pregnant if you like. Even if you were raped
> or something equally horrible you should carry the child to term and
> offer it for adoption.
Even if she doesn't want to, because you say so?
It's just as much my right to say if she can kill her unborn child as it is say if she can kill her seven year old child. Either society has the right to enforce basic moral principals or it doesn't. Why should the age of your victim matter? Should we have a law against murder? I'm somewhat of an anarchist myself so I tend to believe in minimal government, I don't really believe in the concept of morality laws or a police force, but I have the right to say that I think something is morally wrong.
> Killing another person is not a choice. If my grandpa no longer
> recognizes me, smells real bad, and generally ruins my life after I'm
> unwillingly stuck with his care it doesn't mean I can just whack the old
> fart - either I turn him over to someone else to care for or I take care
> of him myself. Another person's life being inconvenient for me is not a
> good enough reason to kill them.
Let's say that you had to carry your grandfather on your back for eight
months before you could turn him over to someone else for care -- because
I say so.
I have a sister with severe cerebral palsy. I, or other family members, will be taking care of her basic needs for the rest of her life. I had to carry her, at about 100lbs and 4 1/2 ft tall, almost constantly day after day - for years. It's inconvenient and sometimes you wish you didn't have to deal with it but that isn't a reason to kill someone and it'd definitely be my loss if she wasn't around.
If my grandfather had to be on my back for eight months then that is a burden I would deal with because it'd be the right thing to do. If I had to carry a total stranger on my back for eight months, to save their life, then that is what I'd do.
> I know that I could see my child on ultrasound at a very early age as
> definitely a real person growing in my wife's womb - actively moving
> around and alive. Anyone that would kill an unborn child may as well
> walk into a nursery and cut the throat of a random child.
(A) there is a readily discernible difference between a fetus and a child
(B) a woman's own child is not comparable to a "random child" which is
usually someone else's child
One obvious argument is that a fetus is not able to survive on its own and
it should not be the obligation of anyone to allow another person to live
inside her body if she doesn't want to do that.
I would agree that killing a child once it could possibly live on it's own is a worse crime but I would not agree that a fetus is not worthy of life. Once that life is in your body then you are under an obligation to care for it and do your best to bring it to term. It's not such a bad thing to have it living inside your body that you have a right to be rid of it. Again, it's only an inconvenience and not life threatening or causing pain beyond reasonable expectation to be able to deal with.
> I even disagree with the church I go to (LDS)
You converted to Mormonism?
It's complex. I have and I haven't. I sort of modified their doctrine to fit within my existing belief framework. Basically I believe we are evolving God so however we try to live, if enough of us do it, is the God and the afterlife that we'll create.. yada yada yada. Mormons are pro-family, pro-education, and just all-around nice people and their own doctrine is interesting enough that it actually didn't differ that much from my own interesting ideas to begin with (they believe in becoming gods are creating alternate realities of their own).
> One last thought - I think the father should get equal rights in the
> choice to veto an abortion or adoption. If the father is willing to take
> the child as his responsibility and the mother doesn't want it then he
> should be allowed to have the child. A strong, timely, effort to contact
> the father so he can make this choice should have to be made.
What if he raped her? We don't always know who the father is. Does the
pregnant woman have a right to privacy? Can prenatal paternity testing be
forced on her against her will?
In a case of rape obviously the father wouldn't have the right to keep the child (as he should be jailed) but maybe his family should have that right if the mother doesn't want the child.
There are plenty of ways to identify a father today. Women usually have some idea when they get pregnant - they could post public notices like other legal events require. Prenatal testing shouldn't be required unless she is unwilling to wait until birth for testing. In that case it should be required. If your going to snuff out a life then you have to give up certain of your own rights to do so. Tuff shit.
No right to privacy exists nor should it exist. Privacy is a concept incompatible with the information age and anyway people should be held publicly accountable for their actions. First, if nobody has privacy then everyone is in the same position of everyone knowing everything about them - taboos are hard to maintain in such a society. Second, people doing things that are still taboo would feel pressure to conform and not do the bad things they are doing. Pretty much a good thing on both counts.
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact