Text 6160, 79 rader
Skriven 2008-01-26 23:08:31 av Daniel Prather (1318.pol_inc)
   Kommentar till text 6089 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
Ärende: Pro-Choice
==================
  Re: Pro-Choice
  By: Bob Klahn to Daniel Prather on Wed Jan 23 2008 11:26 am

 >  A society without limitations is not civilized either. Total
 >  control over your body implies having sex in a public park if
 >  you so desire. Nice porno-premise, but not what I call
 >  civilized.

Perhaps, though I don't particularly think sex in public should be illegal.  I
think the social stigma surrounding it would largely make it a non-issue.
Besides, how uncomfortable can that be?  You might get leaves and dirt and
stuff all up in those sensitive areas.  Of course, there are those who might
get off on the idea, but I think the thrill would be significantly reduced if
it wasn't for the "taboo" nature already.

 >  Yes, it does. A baby who cannot live outside the womb may do
 >  quite well inside.

But, if the mother decides she wants it out, there's nobody who can force her
to keep it inside her.  Once the baby is out, if it can't survive without its
mothers life support system, oh well.  Distasteful, perhaps, but that's no
basis for law.

 >  Yeah, whether you realize it or not, you are.

I'm not, even if you want to portray it as such.

 >  Yes, it is. A baby is not independently viable for a long time,
 >  outside the womb as well as inside. And a baby who is viable
 >  inside the womb, is viable.

As Dan pointed out earlier (at least I think it was Dan), anyone can pick up a
viable child after it's born and take care of it.  If it isn't viable, it can't
live without the mother's biological life support systems.

 >  Isn't it? Some years back a poster in another echo pointed out
 >  to me that Ritalin or some equivalent was being used by every
 >  school shooter in recent times.

So, ritalin causes school shootings, school shootings are perpetrated by those
who have disorders requiring ritalin, or what?

 >  You may feel it's OK for an incompetent to practice medicine, I
 >  have serious doubts about that.

I didn't say I was comfortable with an incompetent person practicing medicine
using my body.  However, it's my choice which person I see for what purpose.
If I'm presented with information about the doctor's qualifications and such,
am able to verify them to ensure they're valid, talk to others who has received
his/her care, and make my decision to seek treatment from this person, where's
the problem?  If I disregard all that information and go on the assumption that
the doctor is good because I like their first name, should my choice be
invalidated because someone disagrees with my reasoning?

 >  So, the parent cannot take their bodies off to Hawaii and leave
 >  the kids to fend for themselves?

Sure they can.  But, they may get in trouble when people find the dead baby.
Of course, they're perfectly within their rights to give the child to a
relative, baby sitter, adoption agency, church, whatever they want to do, so
they can live their lives as they see fit.

 >  I find murder distasteful, even that of elderly people who no
 >  longer contribute to society. Is that a problem for you?

Murder isn't a medical procedure.  However, there is doctor assisted suicide,
which I fully support.

 >  In any event, if you see no difference between the rightness of
 >  the government banning late term abortions, then your raising
 >  the issue is a red herring.

How is it a red herring?  It's fully relevant to the discussion, as any
limitation on a woman's control over her own body sets a precedent and
justification for further restrictions on her rights.

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