|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:17 am
WatersMoon110 divineseraph it does not matter if the child cannot make a choice for itself. again, a person in a coma is unable to make decisions. should we be able to kill them legally? how about a sleeping person? though they will wake up, at the time they are only sleeping and their awakening is but a potential occurence among many other potential occurences. and seeing as somone who is awake is the only one in that situation who can choose, and the sleeping person is unable to choose... the waking person should have all rights to kill the sleeping, make the choice for something that can't make one at this time. 1. The whole "choice of the fetus" thing was brought up by MiNdCaNdy (I think that's capitalized right eek ). I wasn't saying that it was an excuse for killing anyone. I just said that it isn't hypocritical that the fetus gets no choice in abortion, because fetii CAN'T make any choices, what-so-ever. 2. This is not a debate thread or a debate guild. I have already stated the basic reason why I am Pro-Choice (the woman's right to deny use of her body). If you want to debate, either PM me or go to the Abortion Debate thread in the ED and I will discuss this there. 3. "Child" is a medical term for a human between the ages of 2 and 12. No children (between the ages of 2 and 12) have been or will ever be aborted. There is not any attempt to abort any humans from the age of 2 to 12. Or sleeping people, or people in comas (or commas, for that matter, since I wrote that first because I can't spell). Either PM me, so we can debate one on one and not upset any innocent (or not so innocent) bistanders in here, or meet me in the Debate. This is not the place to argue why I am, should be, or shouldn't be Pro-Choice. Please don't argue semantics. Child can mean, medically, between the ages of 2 and 12. But it can also mean offspring; I am still the child of my parents even though I am 19, I was a child of my parents as soon as (And in my opinion, before) I was born, and I will continue to be a child of my parents forever. And the argument is not whether abortions have been attempted upon people who are sleeping or in comas, it's whether people who are in comas should be stripped of their rights as human beings simply because they cannot make the choice for themselves at that moment. If you don't want to debate, fine, I just want to straighten things out as to what was being debated.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:42 pm
I.Am WatersMoon110 divineseraph it does not matter if the child cannot make a choice for itself. again, a person in a coma is unable to make decisions. should we be able to kill them legally? how about a sleeping person? though they will wake up, at the time they are only sleeping and their awakening is but a potential occurence among many other potential occurences. and seeing as somone who is awake is the only one in that situation who can choose, and the sleeping person is unable to choose... the waking person should have all rights to kill the sleeping, make the choice for something that can't make one at this time. 1. The whole "choice of the fetus" thing was brought up by MiNdCaNdy (I think that's capitalized right eek ). I wasn't saying that it was an excuse for killing anyone. I just said that it isn't hypocritical that the fetus gets no choice in abortion, because fetii CAN'T make any choices, what-so-ever. 2. This is not a debate thread or a debate guild. I have already stated the basic reason why I am Pro-Choice (the woman's right to deny use of her body). If you want to debate, either PM me or go to the Abortion Debate thread in the ED and I will discuss this there. 3. "Child" is a medical term for a human between the ages of 2 and 12. No children (between the ages of 2 and 12) have been or will ever be aborted. There is not any attempt to abort any humans from the age of 2 to 12. Or sleeping people, or people in comas (or commas, for that matter, since I wrote that first because I can't spell). Either PM me, so we can debate one on one and not upset any innocent (or not so innocent) bistanders in here, or meet me in the Debate. This is not the place to argue why I am, should be, or shouldn't be Pro-Choice. Please don't argue semantics. Child can mean, medically, between the ages of 2 and 12. But it can also mean offspring; I am still the child of my parents even though I am 19, I was a child of my parents as soon as (And in my opinion, before) I was born, and I will continue to be a child of my parents forever. And the argument is not whether abortions have been attempted upon people who are sleeping or in comas, it's whether people who are in comas should be stripped of their rights as human beings simply because they cannot make the choice for themselves at that moment. If you don't want to debate, fine, I just want to straighten things out as to what was being debated. I tend to think of medical terms, but I do know that "child" can also mean "offspring". It [edit - less petty-ness in the post] is just a pet peeve of mine. But I am sorry, that was very petty and I shouldn't have said it. I appologise to you, to divine, and to the entire Guild. I'm very sorry. The fetus doesn't not have rights because it is unable to make choices. The entire choice thing was brought up by MiNdCaNdY (is that right?) as the reason why he believes all Pro-Choicers are hypocritical. I was pointing out that the fetus doesn't get any choice (no matter what the woman chooses, abortion or keeping it or adoption) because it is completely incapable of making any choices what-so-ever at that stage of human developement. The fact that other humans are incapable of making choices has nothing to do with whether or not Pro-Choicers are hypocritical or if fetii can choose to be or not be aborted. (My cat also has nothing to do with this) I try not to debate in here at all, only to add information, try to correct anything that might be slightly mistaken, and clarify my points. I don't feel that this is a place for debate to happen (other than in the ED subforum, etc.) because this is a safe haven for Pro-Lifers. When I feel that what I was trying to clarify has broken down into a debate about abortion itself, I try to invite the person questioning me to debate about it elsewhere. I LOVE debating, but I don't feel that this is the place for it. I am more than willing to debate anyone about abortion (or most anything else, like how evil frogs are) through PMs or in the ED. This is a place for Pro-Lifers to relax and be safe from Pro-Choicer attacks. I don't want to bring in the hostility of the Debate to this Guild.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:33 pm
I would simply like to point out the difference in thought-process. Waters thinks in terms of definitions and wording. definitions and words change meaning with time.
I tend to see things as images, as how they are, videos in my mind if you will. i do not look at the words "abortion" or "child" or "fetus", i see, in my mind, the action of the fetus, general 8 week fetus, fingers beginning to develop, heartbeat. i see it being torn apart, i see that it will not be born. i see how it was created and cross-reference. I see the imagery as apalling and unacceptable. i think this is a key difference- lifers look at what actually happens, while choicers tend to look at definitions and wording.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:50 pm
divineseraph I would simply like to point out the difference in thought-process. Waters thinks in terms of definitions and wording. definitions and words change meaning with time. I tend to see things as images, as how they are, videos in my mind if you will. i do not look at the words "abortion" or "child" or "fetus", i see, in my mind, the action of the fetus, general 8 week fetus, fingers beginning to develop, heartbeat. i see it being torn apart, i see that it will not be born. i see how it was created and cross-reference. I see the imagery as apalling and unacceptable. i think this is a key difference- lifers look at what actually happens, while choicers tend to look at definitions and wording. You are more than free to believe that abortions are horifying. But legal code IS "definitions and wording", so that is how I tend to approach legal matters. I think that most Pro-Choicers also tend to think of situations and emotional responses, not simply logical interactions as I do. Most people involved in this issue seem to operate on a purely emotional level. I do not feel it fair to say that most Pro-Choicers are like me, any more than I would claim that most Pro-Lifers are like you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:43 pm
I know of at least on Lifer who thinks about the same way; To her, it's not legal to kill other humans, so it shouldn't be legal to kill fetii. Simple as that. If it were legal to kill other humans, then it should be legal to kill fetii.
As for me, it's mostly logic I like to think. I avoid thinking of imagery and emotions because it clouds the issue. It'd be really hard to support the war in Iraq if I was run by my emotions, because war's a sad thing. But, logically, I know that sometimes one life must be sacrificed to save ten, or a hundred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:55 pm
yes, logic and emotion for me. Life > Convenience, life > sex. plus, it's the fact that it's a human life, which i find has value. taking it away for something statistically so selfsih is just... unacceptable.
likei t or not, all laws are based on one moral code or another, the code that gives value to anything. concepts like nihilism and existentialism (spelling?) go against that, they say that either nothing exists, thus making all morals obsolete, or things only exist as physical objects, and "reality" is only how our mind percieves things, thus making all morals, thoughts and concepts null.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:43 am
WatersMoon110 Fetii are not aware, probably less so than ants are, since ants actually interact with their suroundings. Before they're developed enough to be born, while they're still fetuses, humans can and do interact with their environment. At the most basic stages of brain activity, everything has a self-preservation instinct. Humans, ants, any animal, regardless of how well it comprehends a harmful situation, has an instinct to survive and will fight off an attempt to harm it. Suicidal people often end up doing this unconsciously. I'm not even trying to "personify" fetuses any more than, well, they are, just arguing that you can't interpret a lack of cognition to mean agreement, acceptance or even apathy. I understand why some would see any objection by a fetus as not morally overruling a pregnant woman's wishes, but you can't say anything with a brain (I'm not referring to embryos or month-old fetuses) would have no objection to being harmed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:15 am
La Veuve Zin WatersMoon110 Fetii are not aware, probably less so than ants are, since ants actually interact with their suroundings. Before they're developed enough to be born, while they're still fetuses, humans can and do interact with their environment. At the most basic stages of brain activity, everything has a self-preservation instinct. Humans, ants, any animal, regardless of how well it comprehends a harmful situation, has an instinct to survive and will fight off an attempt to harm it. Suicidal people often end up doing this unconsciously. I'm not even trying to "personify" fetuses any more than, well, they are, just arguing that you can't interpret a lack of cognition to mean agreement, acceptance or even apathy. I understand why some would see any objection by a fetus as not morally overruling a pregnant woman's wishes, but you can't say anything with a brain (I'm not referring to embryos or month-old fetuses) would have no objection to being harmed. I never said that fetii would agree to abortion. They can't, actually, since they can't agree or disagree to anything. They can't object, they can't make a choice. The fetus (at any stage) is incapable of providing any input at all into the debate, and so saying that not giving it input is hypocritical is silly. I said that fetii are incapable of choosing anything. Which, in fact, they are. A fetus gets no choice in either being aborted or being born. I'm not saying that it does or does not prefer one option over the other. I'm just saying that it is incapable of making any choice at all, and so isn't (and can't be) given one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:44 am
neither can a sleeping person make a choice as of what happens to them. so can we kill sleeping people? i am seriously interested in this, as it comes so close- if you say that no, he will wake up then i can say well, the fetus will "wake up" and thus have a choice. and if you say yes, then... well, you can't say yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:17 am
divineseraph neither can a sleeping person make a choice as of what happens to them. so can we kill sleeping people? i am seriously interested in this, as it comes so close- if you say that no, he will wake up then i can say well, the fetus will "wake up" and thus have a choice. and if you say yes, then... well, you can't say yes. But by the time the fetus is born it both is no longer a fetus and it is too late to get an abortion. I didn't say that not having a choice allows someone to kill a fetus. I said that not giving the fetus a choice does not make Pro-Choicers hypocritical. The fetus can't choose to live either. It can't choose to go dancing on Friday night. It can't choose to flip off the ultrasound. It can't choose anything at all (while it is a fetus). I have not and never will say that it is ok to kill things that can't make choices. I am just saying that a fetus can't make any choices and so can't be given any choice in any matter what-so-ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
