Go Back   Sports Central Message Boards > Community Discussion > The Lounge

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-09-2006, 05:11 PM   #16
Richard the Lionheart
Krenzel/Owen Wilson 2008
 
Richard the Lionheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,869
Richard the Lionheart will become famous soon enoughRichard the Lionheart will become famous soon enough
Default

And the abortion argument loop begins! (Can you guys see why debates on the issue are pointless?)

I'm not going to argue this, I've already made my point, and it will get us nowhere to go into it further. But, just because I'm curious, boston_aloha, lets just assume for a minute that the fetus is considered a human being--even if you disagree, play along for a minute, its a human being. Does the fact that the human being is inside the mother still give the mother the right to decide what to do with it? I'm not being tricky or trying to make some point here, I genuinely want to know your opinion on this.
__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...
Richard the Lionheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2006, 06:56 PM   #17
boston_aloha
FFB #2
 
boston_aloha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,850
boston_aloha has a spectacular aura aboutboston_aloha has a spectacular aura about
Default

I dont need to debate this too.... but I don't mind if you wanna Ricky. To answer your question - Sure does... as long is its in her body.... Because a fetus is unborn... it may resemble a human, but until it is born, it is not. Definition of fetus is: The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
It resembles a human. I just think the government has no right telling people what they can and cannot do with their body. Whats next? Are they gonna say I cannot kill my zits? Its in-human? Now I know having an abortion 8 months into pregancy is sick, but honestly if the woman wants to, its her choice.
To me, its not about "killing a life" as some claim - its about people telling you what you can and cannot do with your body. Mind your own business IMO.
__________________
Homer: "All right, brain. You don't like me and I don't like you, but let's just do this and I can get back to killing you with beer."
boston_aloha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2006, 07:41 PM   #18
Richard the Lionheart
Krenzel/Owen Wilson 2008
 
Richard the Lionheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,869
Richard the Lionheart will become famous soon enoughRichard the Lionheart will become famous soon enough
Default

I understand that argument is out there, what I meant to ask was, lets assume for a minute that human life begins at conception--I know you disagree as you stated--but for the purpose of discussion lets assume it does--meaning the fetus is considered a human being. Now, assuming that, do you believe the mother still has a right to do what she pleases with the fetus since it is in her body?

(On a side note, I find it interesting that the Supreme Court allows women to do what they want with their body in Roe v. Wade, but refuses to strike down archaic laws in several states that prohibit sodomy (homosexual or heterosexual...not that it matters). Seems a bit hypocritical to me....but I guess I'm wierd.)
__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...
Richard the Lionheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2006, 07:45 PM   #19
boston_aloha
FFB #2
 
boston_aloha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,850
boston_aloha has a spectacular aura aboutboston_aloha has a spectacular aura about
Default

But we can't assume human life begins at birth - thats just stupid IMO, I'm not 9 months and 1 day old the day I am born??? But ok, as dumb as it may sound to me - lets say life begins a conception... Are you saying its murder to abort a fetus?
__________________
Homer: "All right, brain. You don't like me and I don't like you, but let's just do this and I can get back to killing you with beer."
boston_aloha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2006, 09:08 PM   #20
Richard the Lionheart
Krenzel/Owen Wilson 2008
 
Richard the Lionheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,869
Richard the Lionheart will become famous soon enoughRichard the Lionheart will become famous soon enough
Default

Yes, that is what the whole debate on abortion is about. Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, while pro-choicers believe it is birth only (at least that's what I thought the general opinion was before this thread). That is why its such a tricky issue. Both sides are correct Constitutionally and morally I believe if their interpretation is correct, but as the interpretations of when life begins are different, there will always be unworkable disagreements on the issue.

So again, because I am curious, I just want your opinion on what the rights of the mother would be with regards to the fetus, assuming that life began at conception.
__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...
Richard the Lionheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 03:37 AM   #21
boston_aloha
FFB #2
 
boston_aloha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,850
boston_aloha has a spectacular aura aboutboston_aloha has a spectacular aura about
Default

Same as I've stated. Because the fetus is physically attached to the mother. If an entity is physically attached to another entity, it can't be considered living. An infant could be fed by others, a fetus can only be fed by the mother.
So this brings up my question (classic abortion debate), since you think life begins at conception... If a woman is going to miscarry, shouldn't all efforts be made to save the future being?
__________________
Homer: "All right, brain. You don't like me and I don't like you, but let's just do this and I can get back to killing you with beer."
boston_aloha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 03:43 AM   #22
Anthony
Moderator
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 8,375
Anthony is on a distinguished road
Default

But as I have pointed out previously, there is a very real economic dimension to this issue, since a higher birth rate (which would come about if abortions were banned) would mean more competition for a finite number of jobs, lower wages (particularly for the lowest-paid workers) and less leverage for labor unions - which is why I maintain that the Republican Party, or at least its Wall Street wing anway, is so anxious to get abortion outlawed.

And the fact that these proposed laws aren't really treating abortion as "murder" only serves to strengthen this argument: All they really want to do is make abortion far less available, not stick women in prison (or even the lethal-injection chamber) for having one. Of course an illegal abortion racket - run by La Cosa Nostra in the old days but more than likely by African-American and/or Latino gangs in the future if abortion is ever banned again - would spring up, but even so the total number of abortions actually performed would decline precipitously, at a guess somewhere between 75 and 90 per cent, giving the robber barons the higher birth rates they want.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 04:36 AM   #23
Richard the Lionheart
Krenzel/Owen Wilson 2008
 
Richard the Lionheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,869
Richard the Lionheart will become famous soon enoughRichard the Lionheart will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boston_aloha
Same as I've stated. Because the fetus is physically attached to the mother. If an entity is physically attached to another entity, it can't be considered living. An infant could be fed by others, a fetus can only be fed by the mother.
So this brings up my question (classic abortion debate), since you think life begins at conception... If a woman is going to miscarry, shouldn't all efforts be made to save the future being?
Alright, look, I am really not interested in debating when life begins. We are not going to convince each other. Its really a pointless circle that has been gone over a thousand times before by myself and others interested in the issue.

I am asking you to assume for one moment, even though I KNOW YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE AS YOU HAVE STATED FOUR TIMES NOW, that life begins at conception and that the fetus is a human being. Again, I understand that you do not agree with this premise, I am not trying to prove a point, I want to understand where you were comming from with a previous statement. So, if you were to assume for one moment that life begins at conception, and the fetus is considered a human being, what do you believe the rights of the mother are in terms of the fetus inside of her? That's all I want to know! Its simply a hypothetical question.

And to answer your question...if the miscarriage is preventable I'm not sure why it wouldn't be stopped in the first place? But yes, I believe everything should be done, and I'm not sure why it wouldn't be unless preventing the miscarriage put the mother's life in danger. Then I would support the mother's right to refuse prevention, as I discussed earlier in this thread.
__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...

Last edited by Richard the Lionheart; 03-10-2006 at 04:48 AM.
Richard the Lionheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 04:39 AM   #24
Richard the Lionheart
Krenzel/Owen Wilson 2008
 
Richard the Lionheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,869
Richard the Lionheart will become famous soon enoughRichard the Lionheart will become famous soon enough
Default

And Anthony, I can't argue about the viewpoints of "the Wallstreet wing" since I don't consider myself to be a part of it. Im sure out there somewhere there is a cross-section of people who think that it would be better to have more babies running around. (Or I suppose it would be crawling, wouldn't it?) But I think you are dismissing the fact, that for most pro-lifers, this is a moral not economic issue. Just look at who the pro-lifers are--they are the relgious conservatives. The financially conservative wing of the Republican party is composed of mostly people who consider themselves pro-choice, socially moderate, or even libertarian. To put it another way, it isn't Donald Trump who is championing the anti-abortion cause, its Pat Robertson.

The reason for the weakness and contradictions in the pro-life measures I think has more to do with the fact that pro-lifers are currently a minority, and are comming at all this from a position of weakness since established law, and the conventional wisdom of the slight majority of Americans, confirms and upholds what they consider "the woman's right to choose."
__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...

Last edited by Richard the Lionheart; 03-10-2006 at 04:47 AM.
Richard the Lionheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 05:26 AM   #25
boston_aloha
FFB #2
 
boston_aloha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,850
boston_aloha has a spectacular aura aboutboston_aloha has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky the Kid
I am asking you to assume for one moment, even though I KNOW YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE AS YOU HAVE STATED FOUR TIMES NOW, that life begins at conception and that the fetus is a human being. Again, I understand that you do not agree with this premise, I am not trying to prove a point, I want to understand where you were comming from with a previous statement. So, if you were to assume for one moment that life begins at conception, and the fetus is considered a human being, what do you believe the rights of the mother are in terms of the fetus inside of her? That's all I want to know! Its simply a hypothetical question.
I've answered that Ricky... the mothers rights would be the same IMO. Sure, life starts at conception (lets say)... changes nothing IMO until she pops that kid out. A mother's rights are the same - she can do whatever she chooses.
Let me ask you a question now if I may. Have you ever seen anyone murdered, KIA, or in the line of duty?
__________________
Homer: "All right, brain. You don't like me and I don't like you, but let's just do this and I can get back to killing you with beer."
boston_aloha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 08:55 AM   #26
Anthony
Moderator
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 8,375
Anthony is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky the Kid
And Anthony, I can't argue about the viewpoints of "the Wallstreet wing" since I don't consider myself to be a part of it. Im sure out there somewhere there is a cross-section of people who think that it would be better to have more babies running around. (Or I suppose it would be crawling, wouldn't it?) But I think you are dismissing the fact, that for most pro-lifers, this is a moral not economic issue. Just look at who the pro-lifers are--they are the relgious conservatives. The financially conservative wing of the Republican party is composed of mostly people who consider themselves pro-choice, socially moderate, or even libertarian. To put it another way, it isn't Donald Trump who is championing the anti-abortion cause, its Pat Robertson.

The reason for the weakness and contradictions in the pro-life measures I think has more to do with the fact that pro-lifers are currently a minority, and are comming at all this from a position of weakness since established law, and the conventional wisdom of the slight majority of Americans, confirms and upholds what they consider "the woman's right to choose."


Of course the genuine pro-lifers could reach out to the economic left, by proposing, along with the abortion ban, strict limits on immigration (to counteract the population-growth effect), increased welfare spending (to take care of the children who would be born, most of whom would be born into low-income families, or no real families at all), increased taxes on the wealthy to pay for it, and raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation, so that struggling families could afford to raise more children instead of trying to limit their family size through abortion when an "unwanted" pregnancy does occur.

At least they wouldn't appear so hypocritical if they tried that approach.
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 03:06 PM   #27
Richard the Lionheart
Krenzel/Owen Wilson 2008
 
Richard the Lionheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,869
Richard the Lionheart will become famous soon enoughRichard the Lionheart will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boston_aloha
I've answered that Ricky... the mothers rights would be the same IMO. Sure, life starts at conception (lets say)... changes nothing IMO until she pops that kid out. A mother's rights are the same - she can do whatever she chooses.
Let me ask you a question now if I may. Have you ever seen anyone murdered, KIA, or in the line of duty?
So are you asserting that a mother has that kind of right over any of her children, in the womb or not, or is it some kind of "domain issue", as long as a person is inside of her, she's the boss? Even though it is a human being--because, remember, thats the game we are playing. Finally, what I would ask is, are all humans possesing certain inalienable natural rights, or were the Founders and the men that influenced them wrong?

And to answer your question, thankfully no, I have never seen anyone murdered or killed in action. I am assuming you meant to ask me "or been in the line of duty", and the answer is no, I have not. I'm eager to see how you connect that to the debate, I hope its more than a muscle-flexing contest, because I'll concede that right now.
__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...
Richard the Lionheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 04:58 PM   #28
boston_aloha
FFB #2
 
boston_aloha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,850
boston_aloha has a spectacular aura aboutboston_aloha has a spectacular aura about
Default

No, definitely NOT a muscle-flexing contest... I meant exactly what I wrote... which was "have you ever seen anyone murdered, killed in action, or killed in the line of duty" (I didn't know if maybe you were a cop - I know we have 1 or 2 training on this board). I'll get to that in a minute. Let me answer you question 1st.
Yes, to me it is a domain issue. It is inside her body. Once a baby is born, if the mother cannot take of it, the state steps in. So if the fetus is a human that we are "murdering", what about pregant mothers on crack. Would you like to see the state "remove" a fetus and "insert" it into another mother? At what point does the govenment have a say on "what is best" for that fetus? Curious to know where you accept the govenment stepping in.
Ok, back to the "murdering" thing. I was just curious because many pro-life folks call it the murder of a human life. While I'll agree that murder is the "taking of a life", it is unforunetly the violent taking of a life. I wonder if some people wold think different, or use a different term after witnessing this horrible act. Its not like that fetus is taken out of the mother and bashed in the head w/ a hammer 10 times (appologize for using that scenario) - you get the idea. You've seen movies so you have an idea - imagine your buddy lying next to you in what feels like gallons of his blood gasping for air due to a sucking chest wound caused by shrapnel ripping through his chest and lungs. Its a tuff wound to dress. Anyway, my point is that that is murder. Someone crying about not wanting to die, and then having their life taken from them.
Hope I did not "stray" off subject. I'm just wondering if you consider the voilent act of murder, the same as abortion. I'm not saying people shot in the head (taken out rather painlessly), are not really murdered, just because they weren't stabbed 30 times.... Not trying to undermind anything here.
__________________
Homer: "All right, brain. You don't like me and I don't like you, but let's just do this and I can get back to killing you with beer."

Last edited by boston_aloha; 03-10-2006 at 05:04 PM.
boston_aloha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 05:24 PM   #29
Richard the Lionheart
Krenzel/Owen Wilson 2008
 
Richard the Lionheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,869
Richard the Lionheart will become famous soon enoughRichard the Lionheart will become famous soon enough
Default

In response to your question, I have a much broader definition of murder, then, if I understand yours correctly. Would you consider poisoning someone painlessly murder? I do personally. I consider murder the taking of an innocent life without authority to do so. So there it is. Since I consider a fetus in the womb a human being, possessing inherent human rights, I would argue that to kill it is a form of murder. Its the taking of an innocent life without the authority to do so. Now, I realize that right now they have the authority of the government, but since I believe this law is unjust and immoral, I don't consider it a very strong authority, and I would love to see it changed. I expect the government to come in to preserve the human rights of the fetus, which I consider possessing those rights. That's when the government should step in.

And I'm not sure if I understand this "domain" mentality. If we are assuming that the fetus is a human being, no one should have domain over its most basic human rights (i.e. the right to not be killed), at least according the views of the Founders and the political theorists who influenced them.

I think it may just be that my question was unfair to begin with. Since you don't believe the fetus is a human being, its hard for you to assume he is. But lets say, to make it easier, that you swallowed me whole, and I was inside of you. Since I am inside your body, do you have domain over my rights? More practically...does a head of state, or government have domain over the natural rights of its citizens, since that is what this domain theory implies to me anyway.
__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...
Richard the Lionheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2006, 05:40 PM   #30
boston_aloha
FFB #2
 
boston_aloha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,850
boston_aloha has a spectacular aura aboutboston_aloha has a spectacular aura about
Default

Ricky, I respect you and your "love for life". It really is a great thing. However, it only works in a perfect world without poverty, wars, violence, etc.
If I swalled you whole, my rights over you is the last thing you should be worried about I can't debate that without laughing Ricky... you gotta come up w/ something better.
I just think it gets very complicated. Ok, a fetus is a human life. Lets say the mother plans on putting the baby up for adoption. Since the fetus is human, can she pull out the fetus and say "who wants this?" Why should she have to wait and go through preganacy? If the state tells her what rights she has over (what she though was her body), then why not rip out the fetus and say "here ya go, you want it, you take it!"
And you can't tell me "I gotta do better" Ricky, I said that 1st
__________________
Homer: "All right, brain. You don't like me and I don't like you, but let's just do this and I can get back to killing you with beer."
boston_aloha is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:04 PM.