Text 6055, 145 rader
Skriven 2008-01-22 00:14:00 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Daniel Prather
Ärende: Pro-Choice
==================
 >>  I thought that when I was 1A. Now I realize absolutes are not
 >>  all that easy to find.

 DP> The way I look at it, people should always have ultimate
 DP> control over their own bodies.  It's the only thing in life
 DP> where your ownership is entirely irrevocable.  Well, unless
 DP> someone kills you.

 If there is to be a civilized society, there has to be
 limitations on what each can do, and requirements as to what
 each must do.

 For example, the obligation to defend the society is one
 necessity.

 >>  Or you can just try to find the point where the difference is
 >>  enough for you to say with certainty, this is and this isn't.

 DP> That's viability, and one of the two options I offered.

 Is it? Is a baby who cannot live outside the womb not a human
 being?

 DP> Even then, that doesn't mean that, once removed from the
 DP> woman, the child would survive.

  Remember, it's a long time after birth before a baby is
 viable without outside support. IOW, even after birth the baby
 is not "viable" without someone taking care of it.

 The fact that the outside support can come from someone other
 than the mother does not make it any less necesssary. Exactly.
 Now, how does that qualify as a human life, but before
 "viablity" it does not?

 >>  How much of the minority of abortions are you willing to ban?

 DP> I'm not willing to ban any of them, because I don't think
 DP> it's a matter of law but of the mother's rights and the
 DP> advice of her medical professional(s).

 We regulate medical professionals all the time. And we even say
 there are thingsa a mother must do and cannot do after a baby is
 born.

 DP> However, the
 DP> anti-womens-rights crowd tends to act like late term
 DP> abortions (especially IDX) are the norm, when in fact, they
 DP> account for a small, small percentage of all abortions
 DP> performed.

 So, are you willing to ban that small percentage? If not, your
 comment above is a red herring.

 >>  I accept your concession that abortion of a viable fetus should
 >>  be illegal.

 DP> I don't think it should be illegal.  I think the mothers
 DP> rights are always paramount, and always supercede whatever
 DP> may be inside her.  I don't think it's ethical to perform
 DP> an abortion on a viable fetus, but, it still has to be left
 DP> up to the mother and doctor to decide whether or not it's
 DP> warranted.

 Warranted? Or convenient? If a viable fetus is a human life,
 then aborting a viable fetus is killing a human being. Somehow
 ascribing infinite rights to one person over another should be
 more than a casual toss off philosophical decision.

 >>  So, you agree to discuss that which you say is pointless to
 >>  discuss. Ok, I get it now.

 DP> Yeah, it's no skin off my back.  We just won't reach any
 DP> sort of agreement on anything.

 If reaching agreement was a requirement to participation in
 discussion Fido would have folded up two weeks after it started.

 >>  Those who will relegate a baby to death before birth have no
 >>  rational justification for doing other than "Because I don't
 >>  believe."

 >>  Oversimplification is every debater's right.

 DP> A woman's body will often do this via miscarriages.  There

 Irrelevant. What is not possible is not the basis for deciding
 what is right of that which is possible.

 DP> are also a number of other areas where the potential life
 DP> of the fetus and the mother's life are in contention.  If a

 And that is another area entirely. Protecting the mothers life
 and health are a whole nother point of discussion. Nobody said
 it was simple. Ok, some fundies might, but even most of them
 don't.

 DP> mother wants to risk her own life for something that may or
 DP> may not survive, that's up to her.  Likewise, if she

 Red herring. You have an obligation to help someone in danger,
 but not at the point of getting yourself killed. The "Subway
 Samaritan" who jumped in front of a subway train to save another
 man's life was a hero, but that was not obligatory behavior.

 DP> chooses her own life, that's up to her as well.  In my
 DP> opinion, the government has absolutely no place in making
 DP> laws in this area.

 And every law I have heard of makes allowances for that, so you
 are raising issues of no significance. Diversionary, I do
 believe.

 DP> I'm not pro-abortion, as I've stated many times.  I think
 DP> the fewer abortions performed, the better.  But, there's a

 That is why I am a Catholic and a Democrat. Or one reason.

 DP> very simple way for me to not take part in abortions.  I
 DP> can simply avoid having one.  Since I didn't come with the
 DP> equipment necessary to have carry children, it's never
 DP> going to be an issue for me, so it's a pretty easy one.
 DP> But for women that do have the equipment, and do find
 DP> themselves in that position, it's always, without a doubt,
 DP> 100% their choice, and should always remain so.  Anyting to
 DP> the contrary is removing the rights a woman has over her
 DP> own body, and that's wrong.

 Always? Not one single exception? Absolutes should be thought
 out very very well before being proclaimed, and then thought out
 very very well after being proclaimed.

 DP> Needless to say, if men needed abortions, this would be a
 DP> non-issue.

 If men needed abortions they would be women. Which means women
 would be getting men pregnant, so they would be men. Think about
 it.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Quantum junction ahead. Get in both lanes.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)