|
|
|
|
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/1/2005 9:26:36 PM | | A fetus is a human being no matter what. An acorn is only an acorn because it has not been planted in the soil. It is more like a woman's eggs and a man's sperm are the acorns don't you think. Ugh, I'll never forget watching a friend of mine going and getting an abortion at the age of like 15. And I was pregnant and had my first at age 19, with much pressure to get an abortion and much guilt from all angles after having him at such a young age. Tonight I looked out of my car at him playing with all his friends at cubscouts, knowing I made the right choice. You can't just justify abortion with what you think is a clear cut explanation of what the difference is between a human and a person, they are one in the same and a fetus is one step beyond the acorn, he is an acorn out of harms way,deep within it's mother's, yes mother's fertile soil waiting to sprout. You were once a fetus, would u have liked your mom to abort you?? Cummon think about it, bet you're already done thinking, everyone deserves the right to live, not just have their roots dug up by their own parents for any reason, especially not for their selfish, not to mention irresponsible whims. People don't care enough anymore about anyone besides themselves anymore and it's really really sad. I work day in and day out somewhere where all I see is people complaining, talking on their cell phones as I wait patiently for them to finish...we'd all do a little better for this world if we had compassion on all living humans/people acorn in soil or otherwise, life is too short to live with regret and all the strife this world has to offer. I know I rambled on but I feel very strongly on this subject, and no it's not right, it's not an acorn and it's a living human being, give him/her the fighting chance they deserve as your parents gave you, geez just because it's legal doesn't make it right folks. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/1/2005 9:49:12 PM | | With all due respect and appreciation for what you think and what you've written, aablekitty, I just want to say again that in society-wide discussions like the one about abortion and all of it's offshoots, it would be really nice to be a little less flatline about things. Just because it's legal does not make it right, your correct, but just saying it's not right doens't make it not right. Having compassion for all living things means trying to see their side of things. I agree that the acorn/fetus comparison is unfortunate and reductive. But I think that people generally work with the best information they have at the time (I think that's even the defintion of an ethical deicision) and there is no way to legislate or moralize that in our current world. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 5:41:15 AM | I think we're getting way off the intent of the thread. We all agree that abortion is a hot topic, and that there are sound arguments for both sides of the issue.
The OP asked why was it considered murder to kill a fetus in this instance when abortion is legal. I understand some people can't quite grasp the paradox because of the human propensity to insert emotion and individual morality, but the fetus is either a human being or it is not, and the legal definition of what constitutes a human being is not something that can be changed at will, depending on extenuating circumstance. Quite simply, if a fetus were not considered a human being for purposes of abortion, then a murder charge would be a clear contradiction because those criminal charges are specifically limited to human beings. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 5:51:35 AM |
but the fetus is either a human being or it is not, True, of course.
and the legal definition of what constitutes a human being is not something that can be changed at will, depending on extenuating circumstance. It's not an issue of changing. Words can, and are, defined differently in different contexts. Our society has determined that in some situations it is ok to terminate a pregnancy (only the pregnant person can do this in limited circumstances) and some not (others can not choose to terminate that pregnancy for her, either by forcing an abortion or by violent act.)
Quite simply, if a fetus were not considered a human being for purposes of abortion, then a murder charge would be a clear contradiction because those criminal charges are specifically limited to human beings. There apears to be a contradiction. Fine. Why did we choose to create this contradiction? It clearly wasn't a mistake. What attributed to the decision? I'm interested to hear your thoughts. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 6:52:27 AM |
There apears to be a contradiction. Fine. Why did we choose to create this contradiction? It clearly wasn't a mistake. What attributed to the decision? I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
Ummmm I think the intent of the thread is to determine just that... Our society seems to suffer from a good many contradictions, this being the one the OP chose to explore.
I believe my thoughts on the subject are fairly clear if you can weed through the sniping, you'll see that I feel it's simply a moral incongruity. I personally don't understand the capriciousness in the legal definitions, so I'm not the one to request an explanation from as to why the disparity exists. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 1:04:57 PM | | I think the biggest reason for the contradictoriness of US society (and this thread) is that Christian principles of definition and scientific principles as well as legal ones are used interchangably. Scott Perterson did not "abort" Laci's baby. An abortion is an intentional procedure or pharmacological treatment that will intentionally kill a developing fetus. Scott Peterson, as far as I recall, murdered Laci and the baby died as a result of Laci's death. So the double murder charge, while I do agree it has ominous anti-abortion implications, is most easily compared to a scenario in which I shoot someone and the bullet goes through my intended victim, killing them, and then kills the person behind the victim as well. But, hey, Scott knew Laci was pregnant, right, so he knew that action he took against her would kill the baby too, so the baby was an intended victim. I agree, but that doesn't chagne the fact that no abortion was performed. If you're going to accuse my line of argumnetation of capriciousness, I refer back to the problem of interchanging legal, Christian, and scientific terms. And I will add that, yes, it is a moral incongruity. But that's what morality is; a product of conscience and reasoning and those are things that unfortunately don't usually include an absolute starting point (see epitemological foundationalism). I think the above also address the concern about the contradictoriness of a mother having full legal right to abort her baby while the biological father does not have that right. The closest I can get to that in brief, because it is tremendously politically gender laden, is that a man does not have the right to abort my baby anymore than i have a right to use his sperm without his permission. Or castrate him, for that matter, as a preventative move. Sure, this isn't that great of an equation, but when we get into whether or not a fetus, once conceived and gestating inside the mother is a potential or an actual, then the unfertilized ovum and the sperm are up for debate as well. But this goes back to the mixing of definitions. Legally, scientific definitions are most used. But we live in a country in which our legal system is pretty de facto religious. So, if we were going to try and debate this in a way that reached a non-contradictory conclusion, then we would all have to agree to assign legality it's own definitions, Christianity its own and scinece its own, and never the three shall meet. Then we could debate them all seperately, and Christians could only refer to scripture, not science, and science could only refer to science not law, and so on. JUst give it a try. Anyway, that's what I came up with, see if it's of sny help | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 1:35:56 PM | nice Franny ... one of the more insightful posts i've read in a long time.
sound rationale.
you cant legislate ethics, and morality would seem to be in the eye of the beholder (unless you believe there are moral absolutes for humanity and then u would have to define which is the morally correct course of action). like i said before - good luck
definitions of what constitutes a human being complicate the issue further, but the law states that you accept your victim in the physical condition they are in (person with fragile, eggshell cranium killed with a punch, for example) and i think it is safe to say that laci's fetus/baby was intended to come to full term. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 3:00:46 PM |
I personally don't understand the capriciousness in the legal definitions, so I'm not the one to request an explanation from as to why the disparity exists. I simply asked for your thoughts, not an explanation. But I respect your apparent willingness to say that you don't understand. 
In general, I believe the contradiction exists simply because laws are man-made constructs meant to promote particular behavior. In that way, it is a sort of moral code of sorts, but it is a code focused on the "ends," not the "means." Our society has determined, like it or not, that a woman should be able to have the decision to terminate a pregnancy. We put a premium on that; attach rights to it, and put laws in place so that our citizens can excercise those rights.
On an entirely different playing field, our society has determined that we want to place particular emphasis on discouraging violence against pregnant women, and so we constructed a law that effectively allows for harsher penalties in a case like Scott Peterson. (I know this wasn't the only rationale for the law; just giving an example.)
The two laws aren't contradictory in what they are meant to accomplish. The fact that both involve fetuses/babies is peripheral. It can certainly be used to argue an issue (which is precisely why, for example, pro-lifers were such strong advocates for the availability of murder charges against an unborn fetus/baby) but the construct of law goes much much deeper than legal definitions. There may very well be legal systems in which the central focus is on definitions and "means," but that's just not what we have here. It can be easy to get wrapped up in the definitions and lose your bearings on what the laws really focus on, but in the end, our system is all about a network of laws that corral people into particular behaviors. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 4:33:40 PM |
I simply asked for your thoughts, not an explanation. But I respect your apparent willingness to say that you don't understand.
Took you three paragraphs to say the same thing
We all understand it's a paradoxical issue, we can even all speculate as to why the laws were written in the manner in which they are, what the OP seems to be asking is simply why.
What particular elemental structure of a fetus makes it a human being for purposes of murder, but at an equal stage of development makes it a non-human for purposes of abortion. No one is questioning how the law is written, but rather why it is written in such a manner that seems to apply dual classification to a fetus. Do you honestly think it's as simplistic as an attempt to pander to the pro-life crowd? Not saying it isn't, but I would be extremely disapointed in lawmakers if the actual answer was just that simplistic. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 4:43:25 PM | Do you honestly think it's as simplistic as an attempt to pander to the pro-life crowd? I didn't say anything of the sort. If you don't agree with my thoughts, say you don't agree. Your continued dismissiveness shows a lack of maturity that I really hadn't realized was an issue for you.
we can even all speculate as to why the laws were written in the manner in which they are, what the OP seems to be asking is simply why.
Restated: "We can speculate as to why, but what the op is asking is why."
Alrighty then.
Do any ADULTS here have any other thoughts? Pay no mind to timmy's continued restatement of the issue and insistence on putting others down. He seems to not be able to help himself. Forgive him, though. He's harmless. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 6:10:36 PM | | I guess I no longer know what the discussion is. I don't think that even in the begining of the thread was there any way to understand what "particular elemental structure" makes it a fetus in one scenario and a baby in another. I think the point is that the strucutre of the fetus never changes. But the methods used to address what happens to the fetus are what change. That's why it gets so muddled. As a fully grown human being for instance, i have different classifications under different laws. I guess I just don't think, like I said previously, that there is any identifiable ground zero upon which these sociological debates have been based. I thought the point was to debate the process of reasoning that leads to the various standpoints. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 6:40:43 PM | ^ At the risk of getting pounced on again for absolutely no reason....
I think part of the issue is the thread title. It's not specifically about abortion, it seems to me to be more about the political, legal and moral perspectives of fetuses. More specifically, the duplicitous nature of disposing of a fetus in one manner being an acceptable medical procedure, and the same fetus in another manner being considered a capitol murder seems to be the crux of the dilemma. Since there is no medical difference in outcome between the two, it seems to treat one as business as usual, and the other as a crime punishable by death is at best hypocritical. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 6:53:28 PM | | I wasn't intending to pounce. I guess tensions got a little high. I was just curious as to how specific or how general the aim was. A lot of interersting stuff has been said on this thread, but it seems that no one is actually responding to one another comprehensively at this point. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 7:00:35 PM | it seems that no one is actually responding to one another comprehensively at this point. This is CERTAINLY true. Perhaps we should focus more on that. A discussion like you describe would certainly be interesting. (and the "pounce" comment was directed at me. I'm sure of it. Most of his antagonistic statements are.) | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 7:02:01 PM | I wasn't intending to pounce. I guess tensions got a little high.
I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to someone else. Actually tensions aren't high, that's just business as usual for some.
I don't know that it can be debated in a comprehensive manner. It seems to be one of those things that just exists without a correct and complete explanation. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 8:50:09 PM | | Just as what you're saying, doesn't neccessarily, just because you're saying it, makes it so.Every born or unborn child has the right to live. Mom and dad plan on having you? Might want to ask them. I know I was an unplanned pregnancy with my mom. Look up humanity in the dictionary, you might just learn something. Oh and also, ethical decisions are not only using info u have at the time, but perhaps educating pple in the first place so they don't have to make the "ethical decision" to kill living human beings. Wow, is it just me or do those two just not go together (ethical decision&killing human beings)The current world is what we make of it. If we can rationalize killing our own kind as a legitamate choice, I shudder to think of the future for my children, who are my pride, joy, sunshine, my everything I might add. Scott's premeditated murder of Lacey and their unborn child was not only a double homicide, but a tragedy on humanity as a whole. This is my "ethical decision", opinion, plea to others out there, disgust at abortion(god think about it,taking flesh and blood and chopping it up in a blender),nauseating discernment at the Scott/Lacey tragedy, and above all oxygen above all the sea here of political mumbo jumbo. Let humankind, mankind live, quit killing our livelyhood. Thank you this is my last post on this subject it is causing emotional strife and I am dismal that those of you can be arrogent enough to dismiss human life. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 9:27:09 PM | I think I could clear this up, the reason Scott Peterson deserves whats coming to him, but women who have an abortion dont, is because Scott is not a medical doctor,
seems simple enough to make the law work. If your not a trained and licensed medical professional you cant perform an abortion, and Medical professionals dont kill the mother!
unless we get to talking about euphanaisia, but thats a totally different topic
What do you guys think?? | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 9:43:52 PM | ^^^
[=I think I could clear this up, the reason Scott Peterson deserves whats coming to him, but women who have an abortion dont, is because Scott is not a medical doctor, =]
^ unbelievable!!!!!!!..............like it really matters who is doing the killing?.........pro-choicers use all kind of double talk(which differs from state to state)to justify abortion....they'll say that the fetus isn't human (not true), they say that a fetus isn't a person (when is a human not a person), they say that a fetus is like an acorn or a seed (but its clearly more than that)....if a doctor does it its okay.......they craft their own definitions to justify to themselves that the termination is okay.........i would have a helluva lot more respect for the pro-choicers if they got rid of the double talk, and have the guts to say something like this:
" I approve of terminating the life of a human being in-utero"
this way, there is NO mistake about it...with no strings attached......it is straight forward without any lame definitions........i may not agree with it, but at least its a position that they can stand on without confusion! | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 10:08:50 PM | hey hey franny, dont worry about timmy and yammy. they travel from thread to thread in an existential attempt to beat up on each other mentally. it's all good clean fun, and fun to watch.
i see tim's point and blacksheep kind of answers it.
as the baby was expected to go to term and as scott peterson was not a licensed physician it ceased to be therapeudic abortion and became murder. you're looking at it from the perspective of the end result of the fetus. makes no difference. it's how the fetus got to that state and who's choice it was (i.e., not laci's).
and aaablekitty, a fetus is only a human being when it ceases to be a parasitic organism and that line in the sand has been debated by legislators and scientists for years. to claim abortion is unethical bc u say it is isnt a very rational argument. what is the rationale for your position aside from the emotional histrionic? if you are going to convince anyone of your position you're going to have to come up with rationale that explains said position. the law would appear to be in conflict with your position.
sum1reel - you too - how do you arrive at your first premise? - a fetus is a human being? what is the basis in law, science or medicine for your position? and dont say it's on religious grounds bc i'm guaranteed the freedom/right of the separation of church and state. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 10:15:50 PM | re: sum1reel
okay:
I approve of the terminating of a human life in-utero.
I approve of the terminating of a human life outside of utero, say, "pulling the plug," or physician assisted suicide, or just plain suicide, or choosing not to provide a particular operation.
There you go, that's about as boiled down as it can get. Now if you're going to more highly repect a statement made less complex than the actualities it represents, then you are fully immersed in the world of slogan slinging. Which is fine. But if I'm willing to speak in your terms, please be willing to speak in mine. The process of maturation of which you speak in your earlier post is far different from the process of development. A fetus is not maturing. It's developing. Because of it's particular form as a cellular organism, during gestation, I'd like to know on what grounds you ascribe to it the NAME "human life." As a fetus (a scientific determination which does not have connotations of sentience or, for that matter, humanness, but which you use willingly) it isn't a human life. If the woman's body spontaneously aborts that same fetus, where are you able to draw the differentiation. Is it because the body, without conscious support, decided to end the pregnancy. So if consciouness in that example, is necessary for culpability, why isn't it necessary for the designation of "human."
Please know that I am being engaged not hostile. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/2/2005 10:19:26 PM | | thanks, thisis2weird. I'm kind of new to the blogging thing, so I don't have all of the etiquette and protocol down. I still get confused as to what's "good and clean" and what's "fun"....thanks again | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 4:35:00 AM |
I think I could clear this up, the reason Scott Peterson deserves whats coming to him, but women who have an abortion dont, is because Scott is not a medical doctor,
seems simple enough to make the law work. If your not a trained and licensed medical professional you cant perform an abortion, and Medical professionals dont kill the mother!
I think the problem is that it is not that simple. First we are not questioning the conviction for killing his wife.
If the other elements of your position were strictly true then he should have been charged with practicing medicine without a license, not capital murder. Remember now, legally you cannot murder that which is not human. Plus, we also have the dilema of why does he not have the same right to abort the fetus as does his wife. They both equally contributed to the conception. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 4:45:45 AM |
hey hey franny, dont worry about timmy and yammy. they travel from thread to thread in an existential attempt to beat up on each other mentally. it's all good clean fun, and fun to watch.
Not to worry, Nittany / yams isn't around any longer (for now anyway)
as the baby was expected to go to term and as scott peterson was not a licensed physician it ceased to be therapeudic abortion and became murder. you're looking at it from the perspective of the end result of the fetus. makes no difference. it's how the fetus got to that state and who's choice it was (i.e., not laci's).
Scott was also a parent of the fetus, does he not have the same protection under abortion laws as does the mother? The constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, and guarentees equal protection....
and aaablekitty, a fetus is only a human being when it ceases to be a parasitic organism and that line in the sand has been debated by legislators and scientists for years. to claim abortion is unethical bc u say it is isnt a very rational argument. what is the rationale for your position aside from the emotional histrionic? if you are going to convince anyone of your position you're going to have to come up with rationale that explains said position. the law would appear to be in conflict with your position.
If "a fetus is only a human being when it ceases to be a parasitic organism" then Peterson could not be charged with capital murder because he did not kill a human being, he took the life of a parasitic organism.
Just playing devils advocate here peoples, I'm anti-abortion, yet I don't want Roe vs. Wade repealed (for me it's wrong, but I'm not one to impose my will on others - thoughts maybe, but not will). | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 8:10:07 AM | Sum1real, I seen this attack coming the moment I clicked post, lol
[=I think I could clear this up, the reason Scott Peterson deserves whats coming to him, but women who have an abortion dont, is because Scott is not a medical doctor, =]
^ unbelievable!!!!!!!..............like it really matters who is doing the killing?.........pro-choicers use all kind of double talk(which differs from state to state)to justify abortion....they'll say that the fetus isn't human (not true), they say that a fetus isn't a person (when is a human not a person), they say that a fetus is like an acorn or a seed (but its clearly more than that)....if a doctor does it its okay.......they craft their own definitions to justify to themselves that the termination is okay.........i would have a helluva lot more respect for the pro-choicers if they got rid of the double talk, and have the guts to say something like this:
" I approve of terminating the life of a human being in-utero"
this way, there is NO mistake about it...with no strings attached......it is straight forward without any lame definitions........i may not agree with it, but at least its a position that they can stand on without confusion!
The question I ask is why not quote my entire post??? I know, cause if you did, that would make it hard to atack me, so you use less that one third of it so you can spin it and say I have no stand. So for Peoples Bennefit on here, I will quote my ENTIRE post again below.
I think I could clear this up, the reason Scott Peterson deserves whats coming to him, but women who have an abortion dont, is because Scott is not a medical doctor,
seems simple enough to make the law work. If your not a trained and licensed medical professional you cant perform an abortion, and Medical professionals dont kill the mother!
unless we get to talking about euphanaisia, but thats a totally different topic
What do you guys think??
I think I made my point pretty clear! Just because you dont want abortion to be legal doesnt change the fact that it is, and in answer to Tim, I'm guessing the reason men dont have the same equal say in abortion is because men dont carry the baby inside them for 9 months, and we're not giving up body resourses to develope it , men dont suffer the pain in birth, and Men dont nurse the baby after birth.
Being that our part in this is just to bust-a-nut, and the womans body does all the rest of the work, I think it only right that she have the say so in what goes on in her body.
Just a thought.
As far as prosecution for performing medical proceedures without being a doctor, I think the fact that he killed her, and that they have enough to fry him would make an additional charge pointless, but if they wanted to send a message I'm sure they couldve worked that in if they wanted. | |
|
| Abortion
Posted: 11/3/2005 8:25:39 AM | Let Me add the fact that until we can completely stop rape/rapists, or medical complications that could kill a mother if the pregnancy isnt terminated. I think an abortion ban is completely outta the question.
Do some people use it as a form of contraception? yes.
Do some people abuse it? maybe so, but that doesnt advocate that its not a viable medical proceedure for many reasons, two of which are stated above. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
