Political Crossfire Forums

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

Gilbert1908 wrote: By your definition a new born would be terminateable?
Yes if acting strictly by that definition. However personally I see a sliding scale of rights as the law seems to as well, after birth a child gains citizenship and the label of person, even though it is not fully concious. Thereafter it gains other rights as it gets older, the right to drive and drink and so forth.

Gilbert1908 wrote: Selfish_Meme wrote: As property you have a right to dispose of it (legally).
The law indeed DOES NOT say your child is your property and there are many (some would say too many) laws making that clear.
You are right there is no law directly saying a child is your property, but it implies it with the other laws pertaining to children. You are responsible for your child up to a certain age. Ownership infers responsibility. A mother will say it is my child you cannot take it away from me. If thats not ownership I don't know what is.

Gilbert1908 wrote: You CAN NOT dispose of children OR fetus' in any method you like and in fact in most cases NOT AT ALL. You can not be arrested for forgetting to mow your lawn for a couple of weeks but try NOT feeding your child. The idea that a child is YOUR property is not only beyond cynical it is incorrect. A child is your LEGAL responsibility NOT your PROPERTY. No Human being can be the property of another legally in the USA.
No PERSON shall be deprived of life or liberty. As defined by the constitution a fetus is not a person. You can dispose of a child legally as well, you can give them up for adoption. You can lose the right to your property by not paying taxes and or obeying council ordinance laws. The same as the welfare agency can take your child or animal away if you do not look after it properly.

Gilbert1908 wrote: You may make the argument that a fetus is NOT a person and that is a valid legal argument, but why then is a fetus treated differently after week 23 than prior to week 23 has it become a person? It is certainly not cognizant or have memories???
That in my opinion is a compromise for the benefit of the right to life movement. Fetuses can now survive removal from the womb with reasonable chances at 26 weeks or so. Usually they will not lead healthy lives. This would be a better cut off point but a buffer of almost a month is reasonable to assuage doubt about viability.

Gilbert1908 wrote: You are right about most of this except for the gratuitous "stoned" comment .
Sorry, carried away, it did happen though very recently.

bigstick61 · Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:53 am Post subject:

Although I rarely venture into the abortion forum, I have debated it alot elsewhere. I'm pro-life and always have been, although in the case of a pregnancy which may kill the mother, I think it should be up to the couple if there is one, or otherwise the mother, as to whether there should be an abortion or not. Otherwise it should be completely illegal, and the punishment at least the equal of what is given for manslaughter.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

The whole reason I go to the abortion forum is to figure it out. It's a tough call. I mean both sides really make a good case.

But it might be hard to have one universal pro life or pro choice stance, rather it would be dependent on which aspect e.g. legality, ethics, cases of rape, rights etc.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

im here to hear the opposing argument and learn ways to refute it in case I enxounter it in life.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8884

Personally, I am pro-life in the context that I would never support an abortion on one of my potential children.

However, in the legal and moral context, I am pro-choice on the grounds that I believe that each individual has a right to determine their own stance. If they choose not to have an abortion, great; I would consider adoption to be a much better solution. If they choose to have an abortion, then that is their right.

During the course of these debates, I have actually become more ingrained into my beliefs on the abortion issue, because a lot of the arguments that are presented across these forums tend to indulge into my fears of personal morals overpowering societal policy. I mean no generalization, however, the arguments presented by many who consider themselves to be pro-life have presented themselves as arrogant, in my personal opinion, becuase of their arguments that their personal ideals are "best for the nation" or something along those lines.

Personally, and morally, I am against abortion. However, on legal grounds I believe that it should remain a mother's option to have an abortion should she so desire one.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5249 Location: Boston, MA

LostSoul3412 wrote:

Personally, and morally, I am against abortion. However, on legal grounds I believe that it should remain a mother's option to have an abortion should she so desire one.

On what do you base your moral opposition to abortion?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8884

The simple fact that they are my potential children. I cannot tell another parent what to do with their potential child, just as I feel another can not tell me what to do with mine. If the situation was one that I was faced with, meaning an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy, I would turn to adoption before I would turn to abortion.

If I cannot provide my potential child with the life he/she deserves, I'd find someone who could.

However, I also understand that it is a personal choice, and while I do see adoption as the better option, I cannot force anyone else to follow my example.