>>386
"I am? I never took notice."
Feminists don't generally tend to.
"You let your flawed judgement of me cloud your mind."
ASIDE from the assumption you are a liberal, I don't think my judgement of you is flawed.
"Xel provides key facts, statistics, data, and links to these to support his claims. So I side with this."
Xel provides a utilitarian 'argument' for a hypothetical situation. I guess you didn't notice, but as far as public policy goes, we came to some common ground. You are the only one left whining over not having unlimmited abortion rights, whenever you want, no matter how old the fetus is. Even Xel doesn't think you should be allowed to abort whenever you please after the fetus reaches the age at which it could be considered a 'human life'.
"Erm? Assuming they put their babies at risk in this act of 'bravery', I don't think they are 'brave' so much as they are 'irresponsible.'"
"The 'babies' aren't at risk, only the mother is."
Unhealthy people who can't provide shouldn't be having babies. If they are, and they were knowingly unhealthy and unable to provide, and they decided to try and have a baby anyhow, I think this is irresponsible to say the least, and the developing life within them could possibly be put into jeopardy by this.
"The mother is putting her life/health in jeapordy for the sake of having a child out of good conscience."
I don't think attempting to have a baby/child in a situation in which you are not reasonably certain you will be able to provide for it is an act of 'good conscience,' but hey that's just me I guess, LOL.
"There's nothing wrong with that. It's not the mother's fault if she has an ailment like diabetes."
That's right, its not. But it *is* her fault if she decides to have a baby regardless of the fact that, according to you, she is 'unable' to properly care for it, and give birth to a baby even in light of her inability to care for it properly, putting the baby's well being at risk.
"Hmm, you seem to want to punish mothers with ailments when they are pregnant."
I don't know where you get this idea.
"I did say "America", and those 11-13 year olds are having consensual sex without having idea what it's all about and without the ammo to protect themselves. You are quite blind-sighted."
I think it is common enough knowledge that the act of having sex produces a baby. If they are going to fuck around and take risks with something this potentially life changing, oh well, that's their decision.
"You are living in a fantasy world, that isn't ever going to happen."
I guess you missed my point. The decision to have sex or not is theirs to make, and is entirely voluntary. Any consequences of this decision should be theirs to deal with, just like with other normal situations. If I spend all my money in a particularly irresponsible manner, that was my decision, and I must then bear the consequences for doing this. This is just.
The argument that people are physically incapable from abstaining or holding themselves back from having sex is ridiculous as well. Many people can and do.
"Sure. You can pay for it though, keep your fingers out of my wallet. Tightening up our laws and holding those responsible accountable would be a great addon, and this is something the left (and you) don't seem to be willing to do."
"Hmm, both sides want the number of abortions to decline..but yet, your side (neo-cons/conservatives/Repubs) aren't willing to do anything about it for the sake of losing money. So they shouldn't really have any say."
First off, I'm not a 'neo-con.' If I don't feed a bum, am I then responsible for him trying to mug me, and should I have to put up with it? The bum, like the other irresponsible parties we are talking about, took certain actions that were irresponsible. Now, they must deal with the consequences. I have no responsibility to deal with them for them. Anyhow, this really has nothing to do with whether or not the government should defend human life or not.
"Wrong, wrong. Blah blah blah."
No, I'm right. We weren't discussing whether or not the fetus' life outweights the life of the mother in importance, we were discussing a hypothetical situation, and in said situation, this question is moot anyways due to other facts.
"The unborn isn't concious,"
Consciousness begins before birth. You fail. Even Xel knows this.
"Futher, their right-to-life doesn't supersede that of the woman's, along with her happiness."
The woman's right to pursue happiness is not allowed to infringe upon their right to life. Women should not be allowed to abort regardless of how late in development the fetus is. Even Xel agrees with me here.
"If the fetus (assuming seven months into pregnancy where the cerebrum starts developing) places the woman's health/life in jeaopardy or if it has a severe abnormality, then it should be terminated."
I see, so due to the fact that you are the authority on what people have the right to live or not due to physical conditions they have, they 'should be terminated.' I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you'd allow an abortion if the baby was missing a pinky finger, based on the attitudes you've shown me in the past.
"I believe I was right in the Declaration of Independence."
I don't believe I was talking about the Declaration of Independence.
"Right. But a fetus isn't a person."
Depends on how late in development it is.
"a preresiquite for being a human 'being'."
If they are old enough to be consider 'human life,' they are to have government protection in my book. This is the proper function of government anyway - defending human life and the right to it, among other things.
"So, they may be protected, but not at the expense of the woman's health/life/well-being."
Interesting. That's pretty different from what you've been saying earlier. Not saying I agree fully, but yeah.
"But if fetuses in that stage of pregnancy are to be protected, it'll cause problems for both sides."
*Both* sides? How does this harm the fetus, if that was what you were implying?
"In fact, abortions during this stage are extremely rare, < 1%. So it doesn't need regulation."
Just because they are relatively small in number, does not mean that they do not deserve protection. I stand firm here, and won't budge. The right to life is not something to be eroded so carelessly, simply based on the fact that it isn't eroded or infringed often enough.
Here's an exerpt:
"Fewer than 1% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they are extremely rare after 26 weeks of pregnancy" [Ibid].
1,550,000 abortions anually (roughly), according to the CDC around the years of 1980-1990. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 1% of this total would be 15,500 per year. While this could indeed be considered 'rare' due to the fact that the total number of abortions that occur annually is simply staggeringly large, this is *not* good enough, considering that these are the 'late' pregnancies you speak of. This is an annual number... 15,500/yr is *far* from acceptable and warrants decisive and quick legislative action to prevent this loss of human life.
"Typically abortions provided in the third trimester are limited to cases of severe fetal abnormalities."
'Typically' isn't good enough.
"A fetus is a potential life. It is not a human being like you or me."
Even Xel agrees that depends on how late in development it is.
"No it wasn't! :D"
You fail to explain why it wasn't.
Hmm..
"Anti-abortionists often claim that the fetus is a human being and, although within and part of the mother, it has individual rights."
To me, this is dependent upon how late in development the fetus is. Life does not begin at birth, though I doubt (unlike many pro-lifers) that it begins at conception. That said, I'd rather take a pro-life stand than a pro-choice stand, allowing all abortions in an on-demand manner, which is really nothing more than legalized murder.. since it encompasses even those fetuses that may be quite late in development and could thus be considered more or less human.
"A consistent application of this view essentially makes the act of abortion an act of murder."
Yep.. but embryos aren't fetuses, and some abortions occur in this stage. I don't think all abortions are murder, but I think some most definitely should be considered as such.
"This view of the unborn fetus fails to make two vital distinctions-the metaphysical difference between the actual and the potential and between an entity and its parts."
How? One person just has a different view of when 'life' begins. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
"The anti-abortionist position also fails to recognize that human beings are granted rights qua man's status as a rational animal, not qua animal."
Oh god, I sense a Randroid! Anyhow, even if on a technicality, it is again the proper function of government, and I stand by that firmly. The democrats are wrong on abortion.
"In reality, the potential is not the actual, nor is an entity's parts the same as the entity itself and rights can only be granted to actual rational entities."
Fail. You are speaking in terms of when -you- think life begins. You are arguing against someone elses' actions that they take based on when -they- think life exists. You should not be claiming that the fetus is a 'potential' rather than an 'actual' since this is only in your mind - not in the mind of the person you are arguing with. Your method of arguing on this subject is composed of massive fail. If you want to convince me, you have to challenge my views about when life begins, not preach about why I am wrong based on when *you* think life begins. The fetus isn't a 'potential' to me until you lead me to this conclusion, so this is all baseless.
"Individual rights should not and cannot be granted to potentialities because they are metaphysically distinct from actualities. The potential and actual therefore have distinct moral and political implications."
Nobody is talking about granting individual rights to potentialities... or at least I'm not.
"The relationship between mother and fetus is not that of two distinct human entities, but rather that of an independent human being (the mother) with rights and a dependent physical appendage,"
Your opinion.
"something that is physically within and part of the mother and therefore cannot have individual rights."
I don't see how merely because the fetus simply happens to be inside her deprives it of any rights. Life begins before birth.
"Individual rights cannot be granted to the parts of human entities"
When said entity can be called a human life, I'm all for granting it protection.
"-to do so would make a surgeon a murderer when he removes a healthy kidney from a patient for an organ transplant,"
Assuming you thought a kidney was human life, yes. I don't. Not in the sense that late-term fetuses are, anyhow.
"an internist a murderer when he poisons a tapeworm to achieve its removal from a patient's intestine,"
I've never heard such ridiculous garbage in my life. There is a huge difference between late-term human fetuses and tapeworms.
"a dermatologist a killer when he removes a mole from a patient's face."
More liberal crap.. comparing fetuses with moles.
"Anti-abortionists sometimes argue that within the womb, the unborn fetus moves and is capable of sensations. Because of this, the argument goes, the fetus is a living entity and therefore has a right to life."
Yep, it is borderline human, and can feel. Killing at this point should constitute murder.
"Even if the first premise of this argument is granted (the fetus is a living organism that moves and senses), man has individual rights qua "rational animal", not qua "animal."
It is genetically human in nature. Science trumps Randian philosophy, sorry.
"The essential distinction between man and all other animals is his rational faculty and it is this quality which confers political rights."
I disagree with the last statement. If it is genetically 'human,' is conscious, or is able to feel and is capable of sensation, it should be protected.
"Most (if not all) animals move and have sensations."
And are not human.
"The view that the unborn fetus has rights because of its ability to move and sense,"
I am not saying that it is due to the fact that they can move and sense, I am saying it is due to the fact that they are 'human,' and can move and sense.
"by logical extension, is tantamount to arguing that all animals (and some plants) have rights."
Irrelevant due to the above. I am not arguing that it is solely because of being able to move and sense that they have rights. It is due to the fact that they are 'human' and can move and sense that they have rights, so your 'logical extension' is redundant.
"The basis for individual rights lies in man's nature as a rational animal, as a living being with a volitional consciousness (free will)."
OH! *Now* all a sudden we have free will..! Coming from the person who says 'sex is a constant, nobody can be responsible for having sex!', this is pretty hilarious. I guess you are a Rand-quoting free-will believer one second, and a 'nobody can be blamed for their actions - they can't control themselves!' liberal in the next. Funny stuff.
"The metaphysical act of birth, when the unborn makes the transition from mere potential to an actual human being and successfully separates from the mother to become a separate metaphysical entity, an actual living being with a volitional consciousness, confers the moral and political concept of rights."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but consciousness begins before birth, and even you know that.
"The act of birth enables the proper context in which individual rights can be properly understood and rationally applied."
There is nothing that I can see that goes along with the simple act of being born that brings about 'life' as I see it, and moreover, science shows us that these things actually surface *before* birth.