Text 6058, 126 rader
Skriven 2008-01-22 00:50:32 av Daniel Prather (1218.pol_inc)
   Kommentar till text 6055 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
Ärende: Pro-Choice
==================
  Re: Pro-Choice
  By: Bob Klahn to Daniel Prather on Tue Jan 22 2008 12:14 am

 >  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.

I wouldn't consider a society to be civilized if your own body is not yours to
control.

 >  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?

It may be genetically human.  If it isn't alive, or isn't able to survive, it
doesn't really matter.

 >   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?

I'm not talking about child rearing.  I'm talking about the point when a baby's
own biological systems are able to sustain its life.  Obviously a child
requires the care of some sort of other human being to raise it, and that isn't
part of the issue of viability.

 >  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.

I disagree with the legislature ever telling a patient or a doctor what they
can and can't do.  It isn't their business what treatment I'm seeking for my
own body.  If anything, the only part that should be the purview of the
government is monitoring/information so that patients are able to make informed
choices.  Nothing more.  I know this isn't the way most of these things work at
present, but, it's the way I feel they should operate, and what I support and
advocate.

Also, sure, there are certain things the child needs that the parents are
required to provide for them since the child is unable of providing them for
themselves.  However, none of these things are a matter of the parents' control
over their own bodies, but merely their obligations under the law to their
offspring.

 >  DP> However, the 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.

No, because it's not my place, nor the place of government, to ban any sort of
medical procedure just because some find it distasteful.  My point is that the
anti-womens-rights crowd often uses the most emotionally disturbing case they
can find, and uses that as the norm for all their positions.  It's the same
thing PETA does with regard to animal rights and the treatment of animals
raised for food.

 >  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.

I think at any point in time, the mother can have the fetus removed from her
body.  She has control over her body, and that's that.  If the fetus is viable
and lives, it's alive and gets rights because it's "born".  If it isn't viable,
then it doesn't matter because it's not going to be around.

The alternative is to require a woman to keep something inside her against her
will and in violation of her rights.

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

True.  But, my point still stands. :)

 >  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.

How is that a red herring?  If a woman wants to carry a pregnancy to term, even
if it's likely that it will kill her in the process, how is that not her choice
to make, and how is that not relevant to the discussion at hand?  Likewise, if
she decides she does NOT want to carry a pregnancy to term, how can anyone say
she must against her will?

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

Some of the laws do.  Some of them don't.  But, since the doctor is the one to
decide whether or not it's necessary anyway, how is putting it in law any more
than a feel-good measure?

 >  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.

Always.  An individual always has the right to control their own body.  If
you'd like to discuss this issue in a separate thread and go through any case
you can think of, be my guest. :)  It could prove interesting.

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

Err, that's not what I meant.  My point is that men still have the dominant
position in society, and many things in society are made based on what men
want, even when it's to the detriment of women.  This is especially true when
something pertains to women, but not men, where the issues are simply made to
take a back seat to the men's issues.

-- Daniel
--- SBBSecho 2.12-FreeBSD
 * Origin: :: The Realm of Dreams :: bbs.mysticone.com (1:112/10)