|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:13 pm
A child cannot mess with bodily domain. A fetus has to in order to survive. That's the difference. When you say abortion should be illegal because of the above, that's like saying that a fetus has the right to violate the mother's bodily domain when a child does not have that right. that special treatment, not equal treatment.
The main reason why abortions are done is not because pro-choicers are spiteful heathens who enjoy killing, but because of bodily domain.
When you go to get an abortion, it's legal.
When you kill another's unborn child (unless she's in a clinic and you're the doctor), that's not. Why? Because the mother was assumed to want to be pregnant, therefore she is giving consent to the fetus and bodily integrity is not violated. That's the difference.
Yes, she could be on her way to an abortion clinic, but unless she's in the parking lot on her way to the front door, there's little to no evidence of that.
Also, such a law protecting a fetus uaually comes into play when the woman is too far along in the pregnancy to have a legal elective abortion.
Does this make any sense?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:05 am
Regarding the original topic....
The UVVA only applies to a fetus which is killed or harmed during the commission of a violent crime against the mother. The fetus is only considered a legal person for the purpose of charging and sentencing the individual who committed the crime.
In essence, this law was intended to reflect society's abhorrence for a person who would harm a pregnant woman. Moreover, from a social standpoint, it reflects the fetus's status as a "social person"; when a pregnant woman WANTS the baby, she and those surrounding her usually confer social personhood on the fetus and recognize it as a person even though the law can't.
However, UVVA does not grant legal personhood to the fetus in any other situation.
Good try, but sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:48 pm
On this:My Conscience Sex is meant to be only for reproduction not for pleasure. Humans and Dolphins are the only animals that have sex for pleasure. Sex isn?t meant to be for pleasure. Just like when you eat food. It isn?t so you can tingle your taste buds. It is so you can stay alive.
That's what I'm getting from this.
Saying sex is only for reproduction is like saying a mouth’s sole purpose is to eat, and therefore nobody should talk to others because it is an improper use of the mouth. Function is not purpose.
So if sex is only for reproduction, why does it have an amazing failure rate? Why do humans want sex even when conception is not possible? Why do so many animals have sex like crazy with rarely ever actually reproducing?
Species that have sex like crazy even when there's little to no chance of breeding:
European kestrels
red-sided garter snakes
alpine accentors
razorbills
American Southwest or Hawaiian whiptail lizards (these reproduce asexually, but have very active sex lives anyway)
cichlids
purple swamp hens/pukikos
Eurasian oystercatchers
several species of gulls
tree swallows
orange-fronted parakeets
sheep
dolphins
deer
gazelles
Japanese macaques
bonobos
lemurs
And last but not least, human beings.
(source: Diversity's rainbow: diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and people, Joan Roughgarden (2004).)
And if sex wasn't meant to be for pleasure, the clitoris wouldn't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:09 pm
Okay, if the fetus is a kiddo, then...
No human gets the right to be using my body, to be inside of me, to be sucking my nutrients, causing unwanted changes, physical and mental pain, and potentially lethal situations to me without my permission.
So you're saying it's a full human being? That's great! Because no human gets to use me in the above manner without my permission- I'm allowed to use lethal force against a rapist or someone that's kidnapped me to perform horrible experiments on my body.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:56 pm
Isn't there a clause int he Unborn Victims of Violence Act that specifically says abortion is exempt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:31 am
Shard Aerliss My Conscience Reinna Astarel So miscarriages are now considered manslaughter? Wow. eek A miscarriage is like a natural death sweatdrop Not if it was caused by the woman smoking, drinking, taking drugs. Or simply not taking enough vitamins, eating well enough, getting enough excercise, getting too much excercise, or any number of other things that the woman, and ONLY the woman, is responsible for. And how do you know if it was a "natural death" or something the woman could have prevented with a healthier lifestyle? Are we to hold an inquiry every time someone miscarries to determine whether it was "natural" or the woman was at fault? My Conscience If someone NEVER wants to have children (which is completely selfish), they can get a female sterilization, male sterilization, or a vasectomy. Excuse me, but how is not wanting children "selfish"? And by the way, none of those things you mentioned are 100% effective. All still carry the risk of pregnancy (I have a friend who was born about two years after his mother had her tubes tied AND his father had a vasectomy. Rare, but it happens). My Conscience Why did you only mention the sterilization of males? Why not sterilization of females? sweatdrop Are you feminist or something? Tube tying isn't as effective as a vasectomy. It is far more painful. It carries far more risks. It has a much longer recovery time. It is, for the most part, non-reversable. It is far more expensive. All in all, if the choice is between tube tying or a vasectomy, the choice is obvious. My Conscience What pro-choicers are really saying - I believe that the murder of a innosent child (read my posts on the page before. A fetus is a child by law) should be left in the hands of the mother to choose. Pro-life - I believe that the murder of a innosent child is unconstitutional and should be made illegal. Yeah, there's definitely no spin there to make yourself sound morally superior stare What pro-choicers are really saying is that EVERY PERSON has the right to control their own body. Every man, every woman, every child. If another person is using their body without their permission, even if they initially gave consent and are now retracting that consent, they have the right to terminate that use. If I agree to give you life-saving blood every day and I do so for a year, but one day decide that I don't want to do it anymore, it is WITHIN MY RIGHT to terminate my blood donation to you - even if you will die because of it. kp606 It's not about them "asking" to be anything, it's what they're allowing to happen. You have the power to prevent pregnancy, if you so choose to, but by allowing yourself to be sexually active, you're opening the door for the risk. It is against my religion not to have sex with my husband. I cannot have children now (CANNOT - if you want the full legal story, feel free to PM me and ask). So tell me, why should your beliefs supercede mine? kp606 You have "agreed" to the pregnancy when you chose to have sex, thus allowing you to become pregnant. It doesn't not matter what you choose to do with that after, you have opened yourself up to pregnancy to begin with no matter what the conclusion of it is. Saying you do not consent to pregnancy because you choose to abort is like saying you did not consent to having a child if you have a miscarriage. It's just simply inccorect. How does that even make sense? People actively abort (that's ACTIVELY denying consent). People do not actively miscarry. Therefore, a miscarriage is not an active withdrawl of consent. Rather, if it was a wanted pregnancy, it would be something horrific for the mother. Consent can be withdrawn at any time. You come up to me in a bar and ask if I want to have sex with you. We go back to your apartment and I start to feel really sick and dizzy. I tell you that I no longer want to have sex. My consent is withdrawn. If you proceed to have sex with me anyway, you will be committing a crime. And this is a much bigger claim to consent than you flimsy "consent to pregnancy" is since I actually vocally agreed to the act in question. I do not, however, verbally agree to a pregnancy when I have sex. You simply assume that my actions imply an agreement, despite the fact that I use both the pill and condoms which, to me, show that I am quite actively NOT consenting to the pregnancy (but rather accept the risks of it and fully plan to seek medical treatment should such an unfortunate accident occur).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:34 pm
My Conscience MipsyKitten My Conscience 46% didn''t use birth control when they got pregnant. If the women really didn''t want a child then she would have taken higher procausons. Such as ECPs. They prevent 90% of all pregnacy''s. With the use of a comdom and ECPs, people shouldn''t have to worry about abortions 3nodding Why did you only mention the sterilization of males? Why not sterilization of females? sweatdrop Are you feminist or something? It is sexist to say all should be removed from earth >.> Yes, because feminist = sexist. rolleyes Also, birth control works, and it works pretty darn well. Having a track record like mine (four years and no pregnancies and constant sex), kinda proves that. Also, notice how almost 90% of women (in a recent TIME magazine survey) wanted to get pregnant on the wedding night. Is that just scary or what? Perhaps instead of damning women for making "flippiant" decisions to abort, we should focus on the sometime "idiotic" reasons that women decide to get pregnant in the first place. There are probably a fair number of abortions that happen simply because the woman wanted to be pregnant and then changed her mind when she found out what it was really like. I support less lies about pregnancy/motherhood and more realistic education/understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:09 pm
Quote: It is against my religion not to have sex with my husband. I cannot have children now (CANNOT - if you want the full legal story, feel free to PM me and ask). So tell me, why should your beliefs supercede mine? The principle that holds all life is sacred. What religion, if you don't mind me asking? Because if it's what I think it is... My argument there is over a year old. I've since completely lost touch with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:54 pm
But you have to keep in mind that no human being has the right to use another's body without permission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:29 am
kp606 You don't because that never happens. Then you don't know much about computers, and how easy it is to cause them to blow up. Judging by this your analogy will be incorrect. kp606 What you do consent to evertime you sign on is... very little. Rather, if you surf every corner of Google you know you're handling websites with numerous spyware, possibly even viruses, and you consent to them to be on your computer, otherwise you wouldn't even go to them. I consent to look at the pages I want to look at. The computers these amazing things called 'ok' buttons. If I press this, I am giving consent to the things listed in the warning. If I press 'cancel' and bad things happen anyway, they were put there without my consent. Woah, your analogy did fail smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:33 am
MipsyKitten I consent to look at the pages I want to look at. The computers these amazing things called 'ok' buttons. If I press this, I am giving consent to the things listed in the warning. If I press 'cancel' and bad things happen anyway, they were put there without my consent. Woah, your analogy did fail smile Plus, you can always take proper measures to remove the spyware and viruses from your computer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:04 am
Lord Setar Isn't there a clause int he Unborn Victims of Violence Act that specifically says abortion is exempt? Yes. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abortion/unbornbill32504.htmlQuote: `(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution-- `(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;`(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or `(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child. Does not apply to abortion. Also does not apply to a woman killing her own fetus (ie. shooting herself in the stomach).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:56 am
Ah, so it's another example of, "It's only a person if I want it to be a person?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:38 am
kp606 The principle that holds all life is sacred. ALL life? Or just all life with individual human DNA? I.Am Ah, so it's another example of, "It's only a person if I want it to be a person?" I'm gonna get flack for this I'm sure, but... Yes, it is. It's kind of like... you have a special teddy/ornament/necklace/brick. To other people around you this thing is of little value, but to you it is very important and holds great sentimental value. If stolen or broken by someone you would be very upset. However, you may have another teddy/ornament/necklace/brick that is just... there, taking up space. You throw this teddy/ornament/necklace/brick away because it has no use and is a hunderence to your life. It's the same thing with a foetus; if the woman carrying it puts value on it and imbues it with social identity then it has value. If she does then it does not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:31 pm
I.Am Ah, so it's another example of, "It's only a person if I want it to be a person?" Personhood shouldn't even be an issue in the debate. A fetus is either a person and is restricted from messing with BI just like anyone else, or it isn't and it has no rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
