Political Crossfire Forums

[jlrobe]

Mycroft147 wrote: jlrobe wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: jlrobe wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: hey a little off subject, why exactly arent animals considered on t he same level as humans? Besides species difference obviously...

Subjective. THose who have power grant it to those who they identify to the most. White man gave other white men power, men gave men of every race power, humans give other humans power, et.c

So your saying their is no difference, we just dont want to give animals the same rights as us?

For now, yes. That is my opinion. Why accomodate everyone? You dont want everyone to have equal rights. We as humans always make distinctions. For many of us, human rights supersede animal rights, because we have the power and we will protect our own interests first. There is a bit more to it than that though.

Yeah,i guess what i was getting to is that most people say humans are different form animlas because we can reason. Now obviously this would be a bad way to decide when fetuses become human because they dont really reason until much after birth right? plus if they are mentally handicapped they might not be able to reason at all. This makes it seem that either animals deserve the same rights as humans, or else we need to rethink how we define becoming a human being.

First, can I ask you to help me undertand sailor moon. I am confused. I was trying to tell her that physical autonomoy (meaning the baby and mother are no longer attached physically) is where a baby gets their rights in this country. I never said it should be this way, I said it is this way. Now I am a sexist. I really dont understand, but maybe you can read my post, point out my mistake for me so I can understand what she is trying to say. I dont mind if you show me where I am wrong, I just want to know what she is talking about. Anyhow...sorry for the aside.

I see where you are going with this. It isnt safe to compare the two. YOu are trying to say that animals have less rights than humans. There is a difference between humans and animlas. There is something unique about humanity, and you want to know when that uniqueness happens. I wouldnt argue along those lines. ALthough you thought process is interesting, I think debating about abortion should include only people, otherwise people wont follow the argument. Is that what you were getting to?

[Mycroft147]

jlrobe wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: jlrobe wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: jlrobe wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: hey a little off subject, why exactly arent animals considered on t he same level as humans? Besides species difference obviously...

Subjective. THose who have power grant it to those who they identify to the most. White man gave other white men power, men gave men of every race power, humans give other humans power, et.c

So your saying their is no difference, we just dont want to give animals the same rights as us?

For now, yes. That is my opinion. Why accomodate everyone? You dont want everyone to have equal rights. We as humans always make distinctions. For many of us, human rights supersede animal rights, because we have the power and we will protect our own interests first. There is a bit more to it than that though.

Yeah,i guess what i was getting to is that most people say humans are different form animlas because we can reason. Now obviously this would be a bad way to decide when fetuses become human because they dont really reason until much after birth right? plus if they are mentally handicapped they might not be able to reason at all. This makes it seem that either animals deserve the same rights as humans, or else we need to rethink how we define becoming a human being.

First, can I ask you to help me undertand sailor moon. I am confused. I was trying to tell her that physical autonomoy (meaning the baby and mother are no longer attached physically) is where a baby gets their rights in this country. I never said it should be this way, I said it is this way. Now I am a sexist. I really dont understand, but maybe you can read my post, point out my mistake for me so I can understand what she is trying to say. I dont mind if you show me where I am wrong, I just want to know what she is talking about. Anyhow...sorry for the aside.

I see where you are going with this. It isnt safe to compare the two. YOu are trying to say that animals have less rights than humans. There is a difference between humans and animlas. There is something unique about humanity, and you want to know when that uniqueness happens. I wouldnt argue along those lines. ALthough you thought process is interesting, I think debating about abortion should include only people, otherwise people wont follow the argument. Is that what you were getting to?

i think she was responding to your views on miscarriaging the baby purposely. i think she overreacted a bit, although im not positive thats why she said that.

As to the animals thing, i think the same standards should apply. Even though animals obviously belong to a different species, there should be a point that if they reached it they would be considered on the same level as humans. This would be the point of being able to reason. Im wondering why this isnt the same point that we judge babies becoming human beings on, because basically its the point of when animals would recieve human rights. Otherwise its not really a debate over when the fetus becomes human, just one over when its rights override that of the mothers.

[Sailor Moon]

jlrobe wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: I was making a valid point about subjective morality. Hell, some woman will just jump around and throw themselves down a flight of stairs, continue to fall on their stomachs or repeatedly hit themselves there. These forced birthing wackos seem to have a problem if a woman actually inserts something into her body that has the same result, and I could care less what they think. It's absurd that people think they can control what a woman does with her body, and if we had the AOC we wouldn't even be having this discussion now.

Oh, well, I was merely making a legal argument. I can see the point you are trying to make now. One thing I must say however, is that we arent controlling what women do to their bodies so much as we are making the medical pratice illegal.

I hate to be technical, and please, respond if I rub you the wrong way but, say that breast augmentation was illegal becasue it was too dangerous to practice. True, a woman has a right to control her body, but the goverment is illegalizing the medial procedure to augment her breast.

Just like a woman can control her own body, the goverment is trying to illegalize the medical practice of removal.

now. Making it illegal for a woman to perform her own abortion may be different.

THIS is the part I was referring to. in the first bolded portion- are you implying that if breast augmentation is unsafe, it should be illegal, and thats okay with autonomy? Just curious- it really has nothing to do with the rest of it, I dont think, but remember, we cant see your face or hear your voice, so you have to type very clearly, your stance, to avoid a misunderstanding.

You said, in the last portion like "oh well, its a different story to make it illegal for her to do it herself!" Now, this seems like you are advocating that women lose the right to give themselves abortions. I also read Eugenic Harmony's post, stating that women will supposedly "throw themselves down stairs, beat themselves, etc" so I imagine you are agreeing that women should not be allowed to do their own abortions, because of EH's scare tactics?

Well, IF this is the case, then that is very sexist and oppressive, not to mention paternal. Since when are women stupid idiots who cant take care of themselves, or even keep themselves safe? I already have EH on ignore. Actually, I HAD you on ignore, but then I realised there was only like 2 people left to debate, so I took you off, cause I like ya.. youre fun. :-D

And please, please drop all this racial crap, honestly, I didnt mean anything by that post- I was trying to illustrate a point, and I was very clear that was the only purpose.

[jlrobe]

[quote="Sailor Moon"] jlrobe wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: I was making a valid point about subjective morality. Hell, some woman will just jump around and throw themselves down a flight of stairs, continue to fall on their stomachs or repeatedly hit themselves there. These forced birthing wackos seem to have a problem if a woman actually inserts something into her body that has the same result, and I could care less what they think. It's absurd that people think they can control what a woman does with her body, and if we had the AOC we wouldn't even be having this discussion now.

Oh, well, I was merely making a legal argument. I can see the point you are trying to make now. One thing I must say however, is that we arent controlling what women do to their bodies so much as we are making the medical pratice illegal.

I hate to be technical, and please, respond if I rub you the wrong way but, say that breast augmentation was illegal becasue it was too dangerous to practice. True, a woman has a right to control her body, but the goverment is illegalizing the medial procedure to augment her breast.

Just like a woman can control her own body, the goverment is trying to illegalize the medical practice of removal.

now. Making it illegal for a woman to perform her own abortion may be different.

Sailor Moon wrote: THIS is the part I was referring to. in the first bolded portion- are you implying that if breast augmentation is unsafe, it should be illegal, and thats okay with autonomy?

If breast augmentation is illegal, the DOCTOR is the one who isnt allowed to do it. Just like in abortion, you are saying the DOCTOR shouldnt be allowed to do it to the woman. That is why you advocate jumping on a trampoline is okay but abortions are not. I was actually agreeing with you here and rebutting comments made by the other poster. I dont think i mentioned autonomy, but maybe I did?

Sailor Moon wrote: Just curious- it really has nothing to do with the rest of it, I dont think, but remember, we cant see your face or hear your voice, so you have to type very clearly, your stance, to avoid a misunderstanding.

That is true. I type very quickly, and am typo prone. I will be more carefull.

Anyhow,

now I see what is going on. I was debating you and someone else at the same time. I was agreeing with you in one instances, but things got confused. I was really confused by your response because in that instance i was trying to agree with you.


Sailor Moon wrote: And please, please drop all this racial crap, honestly, I didnt mean anything by that post- I was trying to illustrate a point, and I was very clear that was the only purpose.

Listen, I dont pull the racial card for my own sake. I pull the racial card and religous card so people can get the picture. Many times people say the US is benign and great and better than the rest of the world (I am not saying you are saying this), and I note slavery. Some people might call this a race card, I call it a reality check. I am not saying the US s*cks, I am merely saying that we make mistkaes too. I love this country as much as anyone else, and when I bring up race it is for constructive purposes. Peple dont ever want to hear anything regarding race becasue they feel it is the past. Well in my opinion, I am not currently being "oppressed" but there are lessons to be learned.

I feel I can use race as much as you can use your sex. You are a female and deserve to identify and use that as much as you like.

I will continue to use references of race to help many arguments. For instance, I also used slavery to support you by saying the supreme court has been wrong. If I used race inappropriately, please point it out to me, and I will see whether or not to edit my comments. As for being upset at your comment, it wasnt race necessarily. Telling someone that their oppression is only their own heads is insensitive whtether it is sex, religion, a fetus, or whatever gorup is being oppressed. You didnt mean anything by it, so no harm no foul.

[jlrobe]

Mycroft wrote: i think she was responding to your views on miscarriaging the baby purposely. i think she overreacted a bit, although im not positive thats why she said that.

Thanks. At this point, I dont mind if she overracted, I was just lost. Thanks.

Mycroft wrote: As to the animals thing, i think the same standards should apply. Even though animals obviously belong to a different species, there should be a point that if they reached it they would be considered on the same level as humans. This would be the point of being able to reason. Im wondering why this isnt the same point that we judge babies becoming human beings on, because basically its the point of when animals would recieve human rights. Otherwise its not really a debate over when the fetus becomes human, just one over when its rights override that of the mothers.

Thought provoking. I have to think awhile in order to comment well enough. Scientifically speaking it is still blurry when a fetus would surpass an animal in the development process.

[jlrobe]

Okay, so I am now less confused.

So Sailor, you took my replies to Eugenic, and applied them to the argument we were having?

Well, I argue differently with different people with completely different point.s

1) legal. If we are arguing hypothetically about legal stuff, then I claim that if the court says "fetus has a right to life", then all my stuff about miscarriages is what it is. That is a strong presupposition, but this is a theoretical legal debate at this point. Fairness wasnt being argued. I just took the presupposition, grabbed a law webpage and looked up some legal stuff, and drew some legal conclusions. I am not saying it is fair or isnt. I am just arguing in theory. If anything, I am implicitly stating how dangerous such a legal statement would be.

2) My discussion with Eugenic. Abortion being illegal is more about prosecuting doctors not women. In this instance I showed that if the law made the medical practice unethical, the doctor would be banned from doing the procedure. If breast augemntation was so dangerous it was deemed unethical, then a doctor should be prosected not the woman necessarily. This whole argument is now to support the claim that women who bunge jump shouldnt be prosectured but abortion doctors should be. The medial practice is what is illegal, not a woman bunge jumping. Eugenic thought this to be a contradiction, where as I do not.

3) When I was talking about autonomy it is was in relationship to when life begins. I still feel it is true that more autonomy correlates with more rights. I am not saying much beyond that. A child doesnt have certain rights until they emancipate themselves from their parents gaining more autonomy. Taiwan cant send ambassadors to differnt countries, yet it can have its own laws. Here Taiwan is not fully autonomous. My last demonstration was physical autonomy. A fetus is not completely physically autonomous until after birth, and I reasoned that this is why some people consider rights only after birth when the mother and fetus are completely seperated. I actualy dont believe this at all, and i dont believe I said that. I believe that abortions are only okay in limited cases during the first trimester and there should be heavy regulations. Some people believe complete physical autonomy is the threshold, some heartbeat, etc.

sectoins 1, 2, and 3 are all different arguments, using 3 differerent presuppositions, and accomplish 3 different things. I never passed judgement really on any one level. I just made my seperate arguments. Because two of the cases are hypothetical, my responses and conclusions cant be extended to different discussions.

[DynamicUno]

Mycroft147 wrote:

Ha, i already stated that it was off topic. Are you saying that 2 year olds shouldnt have rights either because they cant form a civilised government and demand them? you didnt answer the question.

That's a difference of degree, though, and not of kind. 2 year olds certainly DO demand rights, once they've aged a couple of years.


Whereas dogs have yet to build a city.

I believe the question was answered, but so as to make sure we're clear, my point is that sentient beings are able to determine and derive the nature of things like "rights" and as such are accorded them; whereas animals serve a purpose only inasmuch as they can serve our purposes. That's just nature at work - we're at the top of the food chain.

[Selfish_Meme]

DynamicUno wrote:

That's a difference of degree, though, and not of kind. 2 year olds certainly DO demand rights, once they've aged a couple of years.


Whereas dogs have yet to build a city.

I believe the question was answered, but so as to make sure we're clear, my point is that sentient beings are able to determine and derive the nature of things like "rights" and as such are accorded them; whereas animals serve a purpose only inasmuch as they can serve our purposes. That's just nature at work - we're at the top of the food chain.
Sentient beings do not necessarily have the ability to reason. They can feel though.

It is not a food chain issue as there are plenty of animals that prey upon humans if given the chance.

Since a fetus cannot reason to 'determine and derive its rights' then it can't have them. What about the implicit contract that a woman enters into with the fetus when she realises she is pregnant and does not abort. It is wrong to mistreat animals you own. So she can be considered 'owner' of another being like someone can 'own' a dog or cat.

[Sailor Moon]

jlrobe wrote: Okay, so I am now less confused.

So Sailor, you took my replies to Eugenic, and applied them to the argument we were having?

Well, I argue differently with different people with completely different point.s

1) legal. If we are arguing hypothetically about legal stuff, then I claim that if the court says "fetus has a right to life", then all my stuff about miscarriages is what it is. That is a strong presupposition, but this is a theoretical legal debate at this point. Fairness wasnt being argued. I just took the presupposition, grabbed a law webpage and looked up some legal stuff, and drew some legal conclusions. I am not saying it is fair or isnt. I am just arguing in theory. If anything, I am implicitly stating how dangerous such a legal statement would be.

2) My discussion with Eugenic. Abortion being illegal is more about prosecuting doctors not women. In this instance I showed that if the law made the medical practice unethical, the doctor would be banned from doing the procedure. If breast augemntation was so dangerous it was deemed unethical, then a doctor should be prosected not the woman necessarily. This whole argument is now to support the claim that women who bunge jump shouldnt be prosectured but abortion doctors should be. The medial practice is what is illegal, not a woman bunge jumping. Eugenic thought this to be a contradiction, where as I do not.

3) When I was talking about autonomy it is was in relationship to when life begins. I still feel it is true that more autonomy correlates with more rights. I am not saying much beyond that. A child doesnt have certain rights until they emancipate themselves from their parents gaining more autonomy. Taiwan cant send ambassadors to differnt countries, yet it can have its own laws. Here Taiwan is not fully autonomous. My last demonstration was physical autonomy. A fetus is not completely physically autonomous until after birth, and I reasoned that this is why some people consider rights only after birth when the mother and fetus are completely seperated. I actualy dont believe this at all, and i dont believe I said that. I believe that abortions are only okay in limited cases during the first trimester and there should be heavy regulations. Some people believe complete physical autonomy is the threshold, some heartbeat, etc.

sectoins 1, 2, and 3 are all different arguments, using 3 differerent presuppositions, and accomplish 3 different things. I never passed judgement really on any one level. I just made my seperate arguments. Because two of the cases are hypothetical, my responses and conclusions cant be extended to different discussions.

OK.. I understand now. I appreciate you clearing that up. Among other things, hahaha...

You know.. I think I have been misunderstanding you alot lately... you seem very much more pro life than anything. I'm sorry for being a beeyatch...hahaha Its sometimes hard to follow what people are referring to on here or who, even.

Anyways. Good. Glad its all cleared up. I agree almost 100%, except for abortion being allowed in the first trimester to be done by anyone other than the woman, obviously. And in case anyone is unclear about self induced abortions and my stance on them, I think it should be illegal for a woman to insert any foreign objects into her uterus, as that goes beyond her scope of "autonomy" if there is another life in her uterus. this is not for the safety reasons, I could care less what people do to themselves thats unsafe, really, I really just think this creates an unfair disadvantage to the fetus, having less than a fighting chance at life. Also, when your womb has life in it, then even though your womb is yours, it is also someone elses, and therefore should not be peeled open, entered, etc...whatever the woman wants to do to the outside of her body, of herbs she wants to take internally, whatever, is her perogative.
It would be dangerous to allow surgical abortions to be done before the heartbeat occurs. The heartbeat starts in the 3rd week. Medical abortions, though, would be safer- but this would cause alot of trouble, too...women not being able to get "squeezed in" for an appointment, etc...then you have to start considering having pharmacies dispense medical abortions, which, obviously, not everyone is going to be willing to help you with...

I am not sure what limitations you want to put on this, maybe brainwaves? 1st- this is under heavy debate, too, as people are trying to play psychic by saying that brainwaves mean nothing until a later date.

Also why protect some humans and not others? So you see, there is a tremendous number of problems with keeping abortion legal in any aspect.

PS- I am only one of two girls who actually debates this, so dont worry- this is more of a "mens issue" on here, it seems, than womens... hahaha I didnt mean that the way it sounded... hahaha, but anyways, dont be afraid to say whats on your mind.. I mean, dont feel like you have to hold back, if thats what youre doing... just in case... =)

[jlrobe]

Sailor Moon wrote:
OK.. I understand now. I appreciate you clearing that up. Among other things, hahaha...

You know.. I think I have been misunderstanding you alot lately... you seem very much more pro life than anything. I'm sorry for being a beeyatch...hahaha Its sometimes hard to follow what people are referring to on here or who, even.

Anyways. Good. Glad its all cleared up. I agree almost 100%, except for abortion being allowed in the first trimester to be done by anyone other than the woman, obviously. And in case anyone is unclear about self induced abortions and my stance on them, I think it should be illegal for a woman to insert any foreign objects into her uterus, as that goes beyond her scope of "autonomy" if there is another life in her uterus. this is not for the safety reasons, I could care less what people do to themselves thats unsafe, really, I really just think this creates an unfair disadvantage to the fetus, having less than a fighting chance at life. Also, when your womb has life in it, then even though your womb is yours, it is also someone elses, and therefore should not be peeled open, entered, etc...whatever the woman wants to do to the outside of her body, of herbs she wants to take internally, whatever, is her perogative.
It would be dangerous to allow surgical abortions to be done before the heartbeat occurs. The heartbeat starts in the 3rd week. Medical abortions, though, would be safer- but this would cause alot of trouble, too...women not being able to get "squeezed in" for an appointment, etc...then you have to start considering having pharmacies dispense medical abortions, which, obviously, not everyone is going to be willing to help you with...

I am not sure what limitations you want to put on this, maybe brainwaves? 1st- this is under heavy debate, too, as people are trying to play psychic by saying that brainwaves mean nothing until a later date.

Also why protect some humans and not others? So you see, there is a tremendous number of problems with keeping abortion legal in any aspect.

PS- I am only one of two girls who actually debates this, so dont worry- this is more of a "mens issue" on here, it seems, than womens... hahaha I didnt mean that the way it sounded... hahaha, but anyways, dont be afraid to say whats on your mind.. I mean, dont feel like you have to hold back, if thats what youre doing... just in case... =)

To be honest, I am pro-choice as I said, but walking in the pro-life direction, but still comfortably pro-choice. I myself used to feel I would want my gf to get an abortion, but now I would definitely not. Although I would respect her decision, my preference would be to keep the baby. I would like to see the number of abortions be 90% reduced in the next 5 years. I dont like seeing millions of abortions over the years. I dont like how it is so easy in some states. I dont like how people have very little personal responsibility. I do want reforms to be made. But i am not pro-life yet. For the simple reason, that although I would choose not to get one, and i want the government to regulate it heavily, I wont protest someone elses decision. By definition, that makes me pro-choice. To be pro-life, you have to be completely against it in almost all its forms. If I were truly pro-life, then the I would no longer talk to two people who had them (I guess??).

Anyhow. Your stance is to make it illegal for any to penentrate the safe haven (the whom) where the fetus resides. I can understand your stance as it is clear. I agree, that women should not be prosecuted unless they breech their whom. The only thing I would suggest is malicious intent protection of the fetus. This isnt hypothetical, this is serious on my part. If chemists design a drug that can cause a misscarriage after say even 15 weeks with almost 100% accuracy and the drug is marketed as the abortion drug then I think that it should be illegal for women to take it. Although they are not breaching the whom, they are taking an illegal abortion pill. Now, I dont want them to be prosecuted for murder, but there has to be some consequence of taking an illegal drug to abort the baby. If they take other drugs that arent marketed as the abortion pill, then fine. Chances are, they would get caught rarely anyways.

Most pro-lifers feel abortion shouldnt be legal in any case, which makes sense because that would be discrimination. In my eyes, it is technically discrimination, but in my opinion it is necessary. If a brat teen doesnt want to have a baby, and never considers other options, then she shouldnt be allowed to, if a woman is going to die, then she should. Why am I discriminating here. Well in the first case, the girl is selfish and we are allowing her complete rights over the fetus just for her comfort. However, if it is choosing between the mothers life (not comfort) or the fetuses, my allegiance lies with the mother. Same if she was raped, incest, or anything else.

Now as far as allowing it only in the first trimester. I dont expect any one who is pro-life to accept this. I understand that. But even when i was heavy pro-choice, I had this stance. It is not right, to abort a fetus that late in development. I am not really compromising here. This is my own belief. I never liked the idea. Now, the only time I would abort a pregnancy later is to save the womans life. I have seen the pictures, and no horrors of this. Could I look at my baby after the abortion and carnage? No. But my choice would be to save the mother. That is just my belief. One thing though. How can a pregnancy be life threatening? Cant they prematurely birth the baby via C-section, and put the baby in some type of incubator or something? The baby has less chance of survival, but might as well try.

[Sailor Moon]

Well, as far as doing a C-section, there are a couple of cases where the woman was forced to C-Section to save the baby, because the woman had a terminal illness. Both mother and baby died shortly thereafter.

Look, I had unprotected sex, I didnt use a condom.. So what? Why punish women for making mistakes? Everyone makes a mistake at some time!!! Men do it too! So we start putting all of our energy into punishment, because you think its best to have a "malicious intent" clause, but I mean, thats just asking for trouble!!! Since when is it okay for DAs to be allowed to even perform a search of the uterus? Isnt this considered a body cavity check? Clearly malicious intent can be a charge if she takes a urinalysis and it finds the same chemicals that caused the abortion, but anything beyond that is all stipulaton and hearsay, not to mention a violation of privacy, and would not hold up in a court of law. This should be about directing our energy and rescources towards positive change, not just building bridges that will surely get burned in the long run anyways.

I agree with you on the chemical abortion part.. I said that before. Judt dont stick anything in your body that will cause an abortion, or you can get hurt and charged with malicious intent, and dont take any chemicals that are prescribed, that will cause abortion.

I can understand what youre saying about malicious intent, but its unreasonable to expect a pregnant woman to stop doing her day to day rituals, out of fear of being thrown in jail. Miscarriages happen. Sometimes its someones fault. TOUGH. We cant control everything.

[jlrobe]

Sailor Moon wrote: Well, as far as doing a C-section, there are a couple of cases where the woman was forced to C-Section to save the baby, because the woman had a terminal illness. Both mother and baby died shortly thereafter.

Look, I had unprotected sex, I didnt use a condom.. So what? Why punish women for making mistakes? Everyone makes a mistake at some time!!! Men do it too! So we start putting all of our energy into punishment, because you think its best to have a "malicious intent" clause, but I mean, thats just asking for trouble!!! Since when is it okay for DAs to be allowed to even perform a search of the uterus? Isnt this considered a body cavity check? Clearly malicious intent can be a charge if she takes a urinalysis and it finds the same chemicals that caused the abortion, but anything beyond that is all stipulaton and hearsay, not to mention a violation of privacy, and would not hold up in a court of law. This should be about directing our energy and rescources towards positive change, not just building bridges that will surely get burned in the long run anyways.

I agree with you on the chemical abortion part.. I said that before. Judt dont stick anything in your body that will cause an abortion, or you can get hurt and charged with malicious intent, and dont take any chemicals that are prescribed, that will cause abortion.

I can understand what youre saying about malicious intent, but its unreasonable to expect a pregnant woman to stop doing her day to day rituals, out of fear of being thrown in jail. Miscarriages happen. Sometimes its someones fault. TOUGH. We cant control everything.

THe chemical abortion is all I really care about.

[Selfish_Meme]

jlrobe wrote: THe chemical abortion is all I really care about.
Trying to abort through miscarriage on a roller-coaster and other devices is just as moraly wrong as any other form of abortion..IF you are pro-life. To think anything else is hypocritical.

A life is sacred - abort doctor = bad
A life is sacred - abort roller-coaser = bad

The abortion decision itself must be bad in that case, regardless of how it is performed.

Speaking morally, NOT legally, if you knowingly go on a roller coaster, trying to abort by miscarriage. Then you are just of guilty of murder as going to a clinic in the eyes of the pro-life position. It is not the method that is morally wrong but the decision to abort that is wrong.

If you think it is OK to try and miscarry on purpose then you are pro-choice I am afraid. Because you made the DECISION to abort. The method is irrelevant.

[Nicholas]

How would you describe a person who supports Abortion and Gun rights (second amendment)?

[Sailor Moon]

Selfish_Meme wrote: jlrobe wrote: THe chemical abortion is all I really care about.
Trying to abort through miscarriage on a roller-coaster and other devices is just as moraly wrong as any other form of abortion..IF you are pro-life. To think anything else is hypocritical.

The ethics of aborting are wrong, sure.. but it is still unethical to criminalize women for miscarrying a baby just because they may not have known they were pregnant (even if they are 4 months along- this can happen) or they might just have never been pregnant before, and therefore not know what they can and cant do safely.

Quote: A life is sacred - abort doctor = bad
A life is sacred - abort roller-coaser = bad

Theyre both negative consequenses of a cause and effect relationship. One cause can be the simple fact of not knowing enough about good prenatal care, while the other cause is clearly an attempt at destroying a life. Even mommys who WANT to keep their babies may not know that riding the zippy zipper while trying to conceive is dangerous to their possible pregnancy.. or knowingly existing one.

Quote: The abortion decision itself must be bad in that case, regardless of how it is performed.

Miscarriages are not performed. You dont seem to connect any dots here. I am pro life, and I DO NOT wish for women to be treated as criminals for having a miscarriage, regardless of circumstances. Why are you so hostile towards this highly pro life, pro freedom attitude?

Quote: Speaking morally, NOT legally, if you knowingly go on a roller coaster, trying to abort by miscarriage. Then you are just of guilty of murder as going to a clinic in the eyes of the pro-life position. It is not the method that is morally wrong but the decision to abort that is wrong.

No youre not, because you still have autonomy over your body. Going to a clinic refuses autonomy and cause and effect, by simply going in and tearing apart a life. Riding a rollercoaster or something is a life choice, and may be a big part of a persons life. You cant take a persons day to day life decisions away from them, simply because they might have a miscarriage. Sorry, but thats just not how autonomy or freedom works. Going to a clinic is not a lifestyle choice, while riding rollercoasters is.

Quote: If you think it is OK to try and miscarry on purpose then you are pro-choice I am afraid. Because you made the DECISION to abort. The method is irrelevant.

No you chose to take a chance on your babys life, for your own freedom. Fetuses lives are left entirely to chance. Whats next, body armor for women who drive? Women who ride bikes? YES you can take chances during a pregnancy. NO it is not okay to say that a woman purposely fell down the stairs of off her bike or rode a damn rollercoaster for the sole purpose of aborting. Thats ridiculous.

[jlrobe]

Selfish_Meme wrote: jlrobe wrote: THe chemical abortion is all I really care about.
Trying to abort through miscarriage on a roller-coaster and other devices is just as moraly wrong as any other form of abortion..IF you are pro-life. To think anything else is hypocritical.

A life is sacred - abort doctor = bad
A life is sacred - abort roller-coaser = bad

The abortion decision itself must be bad in that case, regardless of how it is performed.

Speaking morally, NOT legally, if you knowingly go on a roller coaster, trying to abort by miscarriage. Then you are just of guilty of murder as going to a clinic in the eyes of the pro-life position. It is not the method that is morally wrong but the decision to abort that is wrong.

If you think it is OK to try and miscarry on purpose then you are pro-choice I am afraid. Because you made the DECISION to abort. The method is irrelevant.

Not necessarily. The doctor is helping you terminate the pregnancy. A chemist is helping you intentionally terminate pregnancy. A roller coast may have caused a miscarriage, but that wasnt its intent, it was the womans, but the woman can do what she likes with her body for the most part.

Sailor doesnt agree with me on intent however, but I think if someone assists you with intent, then they should be prosectured.

If someone helped you by punching you in the stomach, their should be prosecution. If she belly flops off the dive board, then there shouldnt be because she isnt using a pill DESIGNed to abort, or a doctor physically aborting, etc.

Sailor wants to stop abortions but still ensure that women's rights are preserved. Abortion was legalized to ensure female rights, and Sailor is trying to preserve it while stopping abortions. To you it might seem like having her cake and eating it to, but I dont necessarily agree.

I think that if someone assisted you with intent, then there should be prosecution. Even if a woman made her own pill by swallowing ajax, she shouldnt be prosecuted nessarily.

I keep telling her that there will be cases that will try and prosecutre her things like this. There is no way to blanket protect women across the board, despite what the law says. Lawyers will try and argue using the laws they have. You cant completely remove wiggle room. But, anyhow. I am sure she wont agree. She will have to see for herself. I have many friends in medicine, law, etc. I know how the law can be massaged. Lawyers are crafty and cases are easily passed through a grand jury. If you get enough pissed off jurors in a state like Alabama, the woman would be prosectud.

I keep saying that she would most likely win the in appeal setting a legal precendent to prevent it in the future, but that is the only way to stop frivilous law suits.

[Selfish_Meme]

jlrobe wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote:
Speaking morally, NOT legally

Not necessarily. The doctor is helping you terminate the pregnancy. A chemist is helping you intentionally terminate pregnancy. A roller coast may have caused a miscarriage, but that wasnt its intent, it was the womans, but the woman can do what she likes with her body for the most part.

Sailor doesnt agree with me on intent however, but I think if someone assists you with intent, then they should be prosectured.

If someone helped you by punching you in the stomach, their should be prosecution. If she belly flops off the dive board, then there shouldnt be because she isnt using a pill DESIGNed to abort, or a doctor physically aborting, etc.

Sailor wants to stop abortions but still ensure that women's rights are preserved. Abortion was legalized to ensure female rights, and Sailor is trying to preserve it while stopping abortions. To you it might seem like having her cake and eating it to, but I dont necessarily agree.

I think that if someone assisted you with intent, then there should be prosecution. Even if a woman made her own pill by swallowing ajax, she shouldnt be prosecuted nessarily.

I keep telling her that there will be cases that will try and prosecutre her things like this. There is no way to blanket protect women across the board, despite what the law says. Lawyers will try and argue using the laws they have. You cant completely remove wiggle room. But, anyhow. I am sure she wont agree. She will have to see for herself. I have many friends in medicine, law, etc. I know how the law can be massaged. Lawyers are crafty and cases are easily passed through a grand jury. If you get enough pissed off jurors in a state like Alabama, the woman would be prosectud.

I keep saying that she would most likely win the in appeal setting a legal precendent to prevent it in the future, but that is the only way to stop frivilous law suits.
I think you forgot that sentance, I wasn't speaking legally because the laws would be virtually unenforcible. But if you 'believe' human life is sacred from conception to death, then you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Abortion = murder (from a pro-life viewpoint) therefore the method is irrelevant. If someone thinks that it is ok to try and purposely miscarry while also holding that abortion = murder then they are a hypocrite, they are holding two contradictory views on the same issue.

[Sailor Moon]

jlrobe wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: jlrobe wrote: THe chemical abortion is all I really care about.
Trying to abort through miscarriage on a roller-coaster and other devices is just as moraly wrong as any other form of abortion..IF you are pro-life. To think anything else is hypocritical.

A life is sacred - abort doctor = bad
A life is sacred - abort roller-coaser = bad

The abortion decision itself must be bad in that case, regardless of how it is performed.

Speaking morally, NOT legally, if you knowingly go on a roller coaster, trying to abort by miscarriage. Then you are just of guilty of murder as going to a clinic in the eyes of the pro-life position. It is not the method that is morally wrong but the decision to abort that is wrong.

If you think it is OK to try and miscarry on purpose then you are pro-choice I am afraid. Because you made the DECISION to abort. The method is irrelevant.

Not necessarily. The doctor is helping you terminate the pregnancy. A chemist is helping you intentionally terminate pregnancy. A roller coast may have caused a miscarriage, but that wasnt its intent, it was the womans, but the woman can do what she likes with her body for the most part.

Sailor doesnt agree with me on intent however, but I think if someone assists you with intent, then they should be prosectured.

If someone helped you by punching you in the stomach, their should be prosecution. If she belly flops off the dive board, then there shouldnt be because she isnt using a pill DESIGNed to abort, or a doctor physically aborting, etc.


Thats where you dont seem to see the grey area. I say that since the pills and the surgery is purposeful, then both people should be criminalized. I say that if a man punches a woman in the stomach, then HE should be prosecuted, not HER. The problem is... why not her? Why not? It can be so abused, that there just cant be an intent clause. Obviously theres already laws in place protecting women from domestic violence. We dont need any more. We especially dont need an "intent" clause added to any abortion legislation. This would automatically implicate a woman. There was a girl in Michigan- she and her boyfriend aborted with a baseball bat. It was a mutual decision, and did not harm the girl. Since there is this story and several others, people will now start attempting to prosecute women for this... Obviously, this IS intent, I mean, but how would we know that these WERE intentional, if there were no protections for women on this? So by putting intent on this, it is basically laying down a very large fly trap, a hard to avoid one, at that.

Quote: Sailor wants to stop abortions but still ensure that women's rights are preserved. Abortion was legalized to ensure female rights, and Sailor is trying to preserve it while stopping abortions. To you it might seem like having her cake and eating it to, but I dont necessarily agree.

I think that if someone assisted you with intent, then there should be prosecution. Even if a woman made her own pill by swallowing ajax, she shouldnt be prosecuted nessarily.

I dont agree. Nobody would do that in normal day to day life, unless they could prove that they were using AJAX as some kind of drug, and had an addiction problem.. AJAX??? Besides AJAX is poison, and she would have to get her stomach pumped, but it wont cause an abortion, I dont think...

Quote: I keep telling her that there will be cases that will try and prosecutre her things like this. There is no way to blanket protect women across the board, despite what the law says. Lawyers will try and argue using the laws they have. You cant completely remove wiggle room. But, anyhow. I am sure she wont agree. She will have to see for herself. I have many friends in medicine, law, etc. I know how the law can be massaged. Lawyers are crafty and cases are easily passed through a grand jury. If you get enough pissed off jurors in a state like Alabama, the woman would be prosectud.

I keep saying that she would most likely win the in appeal setting a legal precendent to prevent it in the future, but that is the only way to stop frivilous law suits.

I dont want there to be no room for wiggling.. Obviously... I want you to differentiate between day to day, normal lifestyles causing abortion, and outlandish stuff like AJAX taken by mouth... The AJAX one could obviously be prosecuted, if it caused an abortion.

The trampoline one, could not. Its just too normal. People use trampolines for exercise. ABNORMAL hapenings, though- absolutely.

[EugenicHegemony]

Sailor Moon wrote: I think it should be illegal for a woman to insert any foreign objects into her uterus, as that goes beyond her scope of "autonomy" if there is another life in her uterus. this is not for the safety reasons

Then have the woman you think have done this forcefully tested then tried for murder, and imprisoned for what you think. It doesn't go beyond a womans "scope of autonomy"; you just think it does, and you're entitled to think anything you please. You're not entitled to force your subjective moral will on a womans private life...

[Sailor Moon]

EugenicHegemony wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: I think it should be illegal for a woman to insert any foreign objects into her uterus, as that goes beyond her scope of "autonomy" if there is another life in her uterus. this is not for the safety reasons

Then have the woman you think have done this forcefully tested then tried for murder, and imprisoned for what you think. It doesn't go beyond a womans "scope of autonomy"; you just think it does, and you're entitled to think anything you please. You're not entitled to force your subjective moral will on a womans private life...

No that would be an invasion of privacy. But since its not a medical procedure, it wouldnt be a violation of medical privacy to have her take a urinalysis or question others involved.

Stop with the paranoia, man...