I'm torn now.
I have recently discovered a new way of thinking regarding abortion. My faith demands that abortions not occur, but of course I cannot force my faith upon others. The logical answer I have long used against abortion is this: if you voluntarily chose to have sex, knowing the risk of getting pregnant, you already made your choice - you don't get to have an abortion.
However, there was always one concession to that that I, along with almost every other Republican in the world, made - if you didn't voluntarily choose to have sex, ie. you were raped, then abortion was acceptable. I still feel that abortions shouldn't occur, but I'm not willing to put undue hardship upon a woman or girl who can't handle the pain of it. Many rape victims who become pregnant by it struggle with feelings of depression and suicide, and we just don't have the support structure in place in our country to help them deal with those feelings and the pregnancies.
That line of thought opened up a stunning revelation.
I realized that if abortions were only available to those who had been raped, these women would need to tell someone about the violence that occurred to them. Am I willing to pass a law stating that when a woman is raped, she must relive the violence by talking about it over and over again with perfect strangers. What about a 9-year-old girl who is molested by her uncle? Should she be forced to communicate that trauma? All I can say is this: it would be another crime to force these laws upon women and girls, just so they could get the support they need.
What this means is that abortions must be legal and open to women without question. As much as I hate the idea that a selfish woman would want to have an abortion because she simply wants to be able to be a nymphomaniac, I also hate the idea that a teenager couldn't get an abortion after being raped. Ultimately, I feel that we need better support in place for all rape victims, but that still doesn't change the fact that rape is unbelievably painful for some people to talk about. All human life is precious, and that includes the life of the mother as much as of the child.
Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Gamelot,
Don't be torn, just realise that some factors have escaped your notice. I outline them here.
Peace,
Rhology
Try this, Gamelot:
Everybody has a right to their bodily integrity. If the government tried to pass a law which required/forced you, under any circumstances, to give up or devote a body organ to another human, whether against your will or not, would you support it?
The uterus is an organ. Even if the unborn baby is considered a human, removing it from a woman is her right and simply amounts to separating two people - it just so happens that one relies on its host.
If it is ever a permissible option to remove a loved one from life support when their natural life, for all intents and purposes, is over, then it should be permissible to remove an unborn baby from life support. In terms of how our country operates, however, such an option is mandatory as a human right.
There's a couple thoughts I have.
G-man,
Everybody has a right to their bodily integrity.
Then so does the baby.
If the government tried to pass a law which required/forced you, under any circumstances, to give up or devote a body organ to another human, whether against your will or not, would you support it?
As I said, the vast majority of abortions are NOT due to sexual contact having been forced on the woman. Bad analogy.
Even if the unborn baby is considered a human, removing it from a woman is her right and simply amounts to separating two people - it just so happens that one relies on its host.
That also means depriving the baby of food, water, oxygen, and protection/sustenance. We don't allow that for full-grown US citizens; why would we for a baby?
If it is ever a permissible option to remove a loved one from life support when their natural life, for all intents and purposes, is over
A terrible analogy - a baby's life is not OVER. It's beginning.
In terms of how our country operates, however, such an option is mandatory as a human right.
To talk of 'human rights' while advocating the murder of humans is beyond bizarre.
Peace,
Rhology
'Everybody has a right to their bodily integrity.'
"Then so does the baby."
_Ok, then separate it from the mother. Nothing immoral about separating two people, right? They're just two fully human beings, one of which happens to be using using the other's bodily organ. This should only be allowed to happen when the latter agrees it to it.
"As I said, the vast majority of abortions are NOT due to sexual contact having been forced on the woman. Bad analogy."
_That's not what I was getting at. The hypothetical law against abortion is what would force a woman to share a bodily organ. If the law forced a man to share his body with anybody, under any circumstances imaginary, I imagine I would have the same objection.
"We don't allow that for full-grown US citizens; why would we for a baby?"
_Since when has any US citizen been required to provide 'food, water, oxygen, and protection' to another?
"A terrible analogy - a baby's life is not OVER. It's beginning."
_You're alluding to some sort of 'potential' for life. An unborn fetus is, in all meaningful senses, no more alive than a brain-dead, dying old person in a coma... unless I've missed something.
"To talk of 'human rights' while advocating the murder of humans is beyond bizarre."
_Ah, I see. As an advocate of murdering humans, you're seeing me "speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument" murdering humans? Far from it. I'm asserting a human's right to have a choice as to whether or not she is forced to be leashed to another.
Ok, then separate it from the mother. Nothing immoral about separating two people, right?
It's not just "from the mother."
Let's see how long you yourself would survive if you had no clothes, no way to regulate your internal temp, no food, no water, and lungs that don't work and were left outside your house.
This "removal" is murder. There's no difference.
They're just two fully human beings, one of which happens to be using using the other's bodily organ.
One of which just happens to depend on the other for survival, w/o (in 99% of cases) endangering the other's life.
And the "carrier" intentionally engaged in behavior that resulted in her situation.
But your solution is, hey, just kill the baby. No prob. Maybe this "Christians are more moral" thing has something to it after all...
This should only be allowed to happen when the latter agrees it to it.
But the baby should be asked his/her permission whether s/he agrees to be removed.
If the law forced a man to share his body with anybody, under any circumstances imaginary, I imagine I would have the same objection.
The law is NOT forcing anyone to share her body. SHE allowed it to be shared thru her behavior. Why would we consider murdering a third-party in order to rectify the undesired consequences of irresponsible behavior?
Since when has any US citizen been required to provide 'food, water, oxygen, and protection' to another?
Since before 1973. Your position is the legislative novelty here, not mine.
You're alluding to some sort of 'potential' for life.
No, POTENTIAL for life is when a sperm arrives in the Fallopian tube and there's an egg there. LIFE occurs when they meet and the egg is fertilised.
And the old person is at the END of their life. The baby is BEGINNING. Leave the old brain dead person there and they'll rot. Leave the baby there and she'll be born and become an old human in 70 years.
An unborn fetus is, in all meaningful senses, no more alive than a brain-dead, dying old person in a coma... unless I've missed something.
Yes, you've missed alot.
I'm asserting a human's right to have a choice as to whether or not she is forced to be leashed to another.
This is what you're asserting:
A human's right to be able to choose to end by murder the inconvenience of the consequences of her irresponsible behavior.
I'll bet you're glad that others haven't acted the same way towards you, even when you were DIRECTLY (as opposed to the baby) responsible for their inconvenience.
"Let's see how long you yourself would survive if you had no clothes, no way to regulate your internal temp, no food, no water, and lungs that don't work and were left outside your house."
_Let's propose a law in this land of liberty where you're required by law to share your house with any naked person who can't survive on his/her own.
"But the baby should be asked his/her permission whether s/he agrees to be removed."
_Ah, but the baby doesn't care.
"The law is NOT forcing anyone to share her body."
_A law illegalizing abortions actually would. I don't care about being irresponsible. People use their right to free speech irresponsibly constantly, and while we might like to see them get saddled with the consequences so they learn a lesson, that's no justification for us to abandon that right.
"Yes, you've missed alot."
_Ok...
"A human's right to be able to choose to end by murder the inconvenience of the consequences of her irresponsible behavior."
_I assert the right of every individual to bodily integrity. I believe that a good person might indeed choose to share his/her body organ for the sake of another; it should NOT be required by law for someone to do so, regardless of irresponsibility or of the consequences to others.
My argument remains. If even one abortion is due to a rape, then to protect the privacy of the rape victim we must have legal abortions. Of course, it's not one abortion due to rape, it's many, many abortions.
To g-man: the vagina is also an organ. If she wasn't raped, she had the right to choose how and when she used it. In your example, the woman had already made her choice.
If I cut out a man's heart, am I not simply removing his life support system?
Hey guys,
you're required by law to share your house with any naked person who can't survive on his/her own.
A better analogy is whether the law should require you to care for your family member as opposed to slicing them apart w/ a chainsaw. That is far more precise.
but the baby doesn't care.
You have no evidence of that. I'll bet, however, that babies don't like being salted or torn apart. Have you ever seen pictures of aborted babies? How their mouths gape open in silent screams? Have you ever examined the accounts of abortuary workers who said they were watching the ultrasound while the babies jerked and jived while being cut apart?
I don't care about being irresponsible.
Don't guess you care about murder either.
But you should care on both counts. When the choice is between taking responsibility versus disposing of your consequences with murder, you should care.
I assert the right of every individual to bodily integrity.
Except for babies. The hypocrisy would be amazing if it weren't so disgusting.
Gamelot-
The whole point of having a choice as to whether or not you share your body organs is that you can change your mind. Also, if I give you permission to use my kidney, you don't automatically have the right to take my heart. Different organs = different choice, different time = different choice too.
Which leads me to the second part. Yes, cutting out a man's heart is taking away his life support system. Yet the heart is part of him. He can survive as an autonomous individual. The same cannot be said of unborn fetuses.
Rhology-
"A better analogy is whether the law should require you to care for your family member as opposed to slicing them apart w/ a chainsaw."
_Well don't you like to paint things in 3 coats of drama. Thing is, a family member actually values life. The difference between a grown human and a fetus in terms of feelings and actually caring about life is approximately the same as the difference between a grown human and a stump of wood.
And thanks for all the gruesome imagery, Rhology, but testing still confirms that a fetus is unable to experience pain until the 20th week of pregnancy, after which point just 0.014% of abortions take place in America. So yes, I DO have evidence that the fetus doesn't care.
And yes, I do care about murder. If you weren't so intent on portraying me as some inhuman bastard you'd actually read what I said generously. For instance, I referred to responsibility because I believe that, even if sometimes used irresponsibly, basic rights still apply.
Again, I assert the right to bodily integrity in the sense of Neo's waking moment in the Matrix where he's discovered that his body was being used, against his will, to fuel the growth and development of something else. No human should have to do that, Rhology, no matter how 'irresponsible' and no matter how much you'd like people to pay for their irresponsibility.
G-man,
you can change your mind.
The woman can change her mind too as long as she doesn't commit murder to do so.
It's not like pregnancy lasts forever, you know. She doesn't have to get pregnant again if she doesn't want to.
He can survive as an autonomous individual. The same cannot be said of unborn fetuses.
You mean the man can survive if the things that keep him alive are not removed. Same could be said of babies in the womb.
Well don't you like to paint things in 3 coats of drama.
Dude, it's not ME arguing that it should be OK to murder babies.
The difference between a grown human and a fetus in terms of feelings and actually caring about life is approximately the same as the difference between a grown human and a stump of wood.
And you know this how?
That's not very scientific of you - how many unborn babies have you interviewed? Oh, you can't communicate w/ them? OK, just give the OK to kill them. We'll just give death the benefit of the doubt.
And all of a sudden to be a human being worthy of protection is by what you DO? You better hope you're never in a deep sleep and someone comes up to you w/ the same thinking processes. If you don't respond to the first few greetings, you may find yourself dead. Same thing.
testing still confirms that a fetus is unable to experience pain until the 20th week of pregnancy, after which point just 0.014% of abortions take place in America.
Wow, where did these testers learn to interview unborn babies?
Again, note how "being human" = "DOING something".
If you weren't so intent on portraying me as some inhuman bastard
It's not my fault you insist on murdering babies. You're acting like I'm blackmailing you to argue for abortion.
Neo's waking moment in the Matrix where he's discovered that his body was being used, against his will
Neo didn't have irresponsible sex and then regret the consequences.
Neo's situation was permanent barring his disconnection and flight. The inconvenience of pregnancy need only last 9 months.
no matter how 'irresponsible' and no matter how much you'd like people to pay for their irresponsibility.
What I'd like is for people to stop murdering babies and then justifying it w/ lame, pathetic arguments like yours.
Peace,
Rhology
Look, if I'm in a car accident with someone (nobody's fault... just an accident), and I wake up connected to somebody else, I'll want the choice whether or not to stay that way.
This other person is hooked up to my innards. Without that connection, she will die. It isn't even permanent - it's just for three quarters of a year that I'll have to lie around basically incapacitated for that time.
You'd want that to be required by law? Sorry, it may be a good thing to do, but I vehemently oppose any law that would try to infringe upon liberty like that. Would you?
"You mean the man can survive if the things that keep him alive are not removed. Same could be said of babies in the womb."
_Yeah, same could be said of a vampire sucking out somebody's blood for sustenance, too.
The point is that one living being is being parasitic upon another. Just because it can't live without its host doesn't mean we should require to host to submit to its nutrient-draining habits.
"And you know this how?
That's not very scientific of you..."
_Sure it is, Rhology. Something only cares about being alive when it values being alive. Other animals do not value being alive. A fetus is incapable of even having values. We know this because it can be tested scientifically.
I don't have to interview a baby. I also don't have to interview other animals to know that they don't actually value life itself. Such things are pretty easy to test.
Being human = BEING. It's living as a human being - existing, alive, thinking, doing what living humans do. It's having the cognitive capacity of actually caring about life.
And if I haven't said it before, I'll say it now - an unborn fetus is immune to harm. Thus, you can't harm it.
You missed the point about responsibility again. It's pretty simple - in the situation at the start of this post, a responsible person may very well choose to stay hooked up to the other car accident victim - but does knowing that make it a good thing to enforce it legally? Does peoples' constant irresponsible use of our right to free speech mandate its removal?
G-man,
in a car accident with someone (nobody's fault... just an accident), and I wake up connected to somebody else, I'll want the choice whether or not to stay that way.
It's not analogous. The baby was created w/ the woman's full consent except in less than 1% of cases.
lie around basically incapacitated for that time.
Most women are not like that either.
I vehemently oppose any law that would try to infringe upon liberty like that. Would you?
Since your analogy is bad and since the option is to allow murder, no I don't support it.
same could be said of a vampire sucking out somebody's blood for sustenance, too.
You heard it here 1st, folks. G_man thinks that babies are vampires. Where did you grow up, man?
Something only cares about being alive when it values being alive...A fetus is incapable of even having values. We know this because it can be tested scientifically.
You are shameless in your question-begging. How can you **scientifically** test that the baby cares or doesn't care?
Other animals do not value being alive.
Begging the question again.
Being human = BEING. It's living as a human being - existing, alive, thinking, doing what living humans do.
Please make up your mind. Is it BEING or is it DOING? You said both.
I'll say it now - an unborn fetus is immune to harm. Thus, you can't harm it.
Um, unborn babies can be killed. That's not immunity to harm.
Does peoples' constant irresponsible use of our right to free speech mandate its removal?
No.
And since the baby has committed no wrong, the baby should not be executed. Neither by gov't-approved vigilantes (ie, the mother) nor by gov't-approved executioners (ie, aborticians).
"Look, if I'm in a car accident with someone (nobody's fault... just an accident), and I wake up connected to somebody else, I'll want the choice whether or not to stay that way."
Again...this is not a no-fault situation. When a male and a female have sex, a pregnancy is very often the result. Your analogy very conveniently equates the unborn child with this person you're attached to, though, so that's nice...
"This other person is hooked up to my innards. Without that connection, she will die. It isn't even permanent - it's just for three quarters of a year that I'll have to lie around basically incapacitated for that time. You'd want that to be required by law?"
Yes. Even in my case. I'm not going to cause the death of someone else because I'm so selfish that I won't be temporarily inconvenienced for nine months so that someone else can can live the rest of their lives. Goodness.
"Yeah, same could be said of a vampire sucking out somebody's blood for sustenance, too...Just because it can't live without its host doesn't mean we should require to host to submit to its nutrient-draining habits."
And you wonder why pro-life folks are offended at things you say...in my religious tradition (Eastern Orthodox), one of the most venerated images we have is that of Christ on His mother's breast. Far from simply being a sentimental, gushy, Hallmark moment, it reflects for us a manifestation of the most incredible privilege that can be bestowed upon a woman--that of bearing, birthing, and nourishing a new life. For you to describe such an awesome (in the classic sense of the word, not the current slang use) relationship as nothing more than vampiric or parasitic tells me that Rhology and I have almost insurmountable differences with you regarding this issue (which, in turn, stem from monumental differences of opinion regarding who God is and who Christ is), so I highly doubt this conversation will bear any fruit until differences in theology and christology are overcome.
"And if I haven't said it before, I'll say it now - an unborn fetus is immune to harm. Thus, you can't harm it."
The ultrasounds mentioned previously by rhology would beg to differ; you have an organic being who is responding to stimuli which would elicit responses of pain from any animal capable of vocalization. Responses of said beings are clearly (futile) efforts to distance themselves from the source of the aforementioned stimuli.
The above, objectively reasoned explanation means this, in plain language: The helpless, little baby is trying desperately to claw its way away from getting ripped limb from limb.
"Does peoples' constant irresponsible use of our right to free speech mandate its removal?"
As long as its (mis)use does not necessarily result in harm or death coming to other people, then no. However, the termination of a pregnancy necessarily results in the ending of a human life. Your analogy makes no sense.
The problem with your theory about the auto accident, g-man, is the following:
To accurately compare it to pregnancy, your accident needs to have all of the following features:
1) You knew when you started driving that you could get into an accident (this is always true)
2) You knew a result of getting into an accident could be having to be connected to someone or they would die (this, to my knowledge, has never been true)
If you choose to drive, then, you acknowledge that you may just have to end up supporting someone's life - therefore, you're making a conscious choice to get behind the wheel regardless of the possibility that you may have to support someone's life. You had the choice whether to drive or not - if you intended not to be hooked up to someone else, you could've voiced that intention through not driving. However, once you chose to drive, if you wake up, find someone attached to you for their life support, and choose to cut them off, you're killing them. Worse, if you would just wait it out for 9 months, they could heal and be separated from you, and you could both go on with your lives again - but no, you just couldn't wait, you had to end it now.
I'm sorry, but that's an EXTREMELY selfish attitude to have toward another human life.
I just want to insert this follow-up comment regarding feminism:
I posited this theory as a possible example. It is *theoretically* possible that such an extreme set of circumstances could happen. It's not a chauvinistic viewpoint because I'm not saying that all women are like that, only that there could theoretically be a single female out there with this exact set of circumstances. I recognized immediately at the creation of this theory that most women are strong enough to recover from trauma (I've dated quite a few, actually). It's not a gender-related issue: there are simply some people in the world who are not strong enough. I frankly don't know if I would be.
Post a Comment