Bowser:
James R said:
The usual position taken by the anti-abortion crowd (and I suppose by you and Musika) is that from the moment of conception the unborn foetus should be treated essentially like an adult human being (or at least as a child who has been born) when it comes to the "right" to life. Moreover, you hold that as soon as this right to life accrues in the foetus, thereafter the desires of the mother are irrelevant.
The Pro-Life crowd hold that human life is worth saving, more so that just starting life. So, yes, you are correct. We believe human life has a right to exist, even when it exists within the womb of its mother.
I look at what I wrote, and what you quoted, then I look at your reply.
Did you comment on treating the foetus as an adult from the moment of conception? No.
Did you you comment at all on the desires of the pregnant women faced with an unwanted pregnancy? Of course you didn't.
Did you directly address anything I wrote in the part you quoted? No, you did not. Why is that?
Instead, you've repeated something I already know. You say you believe human life has a right to exist. Well, so do I, up to a point. Is this the best you can do?
I would be fine if we could eliminate state sponsorship of abortion.
Ban it, you mean. Outlaw it.
Again, in passing, I look at what you quoted from me and what you wrote in response. You did not even attempt to touch on any of the themes I raised in the passage you quoted. Instead, we get from you this narrow focus on one single point, and not the most important one. Why is that? Why did you ignore the rest?
Let's move on, regardless.
But I believe an argument can be made that the state has a duty to protect the lives and rights of everyone. Hence we have the Pro-Choice people taking the position that the unborn is not actually human, or refer to a fetus as merely cells. It's easier to take away the rights of another and easier to destroy life if you take away its humanity.
I'm pro-choice. My position is that an unborn foetus, embryo or late-term baby is a human being. So, can we deal with that instead of this straw-man version that pro-choice people deny the humanity of the foetus?
What I deny, after careful examination of the matter and grappling with the science and the philosophy of it all, is that a blastocyst, or a fertilised ovum, or a foetus up to a certain stage of development, is a
person like you and me. Your skin cells are human. Your hair is human. Your sperm are human. Being human doesn't confer personhood on something.
But that is not the be all and end all, anyway. Even
if the unborn child is a person, we then are confronted by a conflict of rights and interests: namely those of the unborn child and those of the mother. My question to you is: why should the mother's rights to bodily autonomy be subordinated to the rights of the unborn child?
If you're really so concerned with the sanctity of human life, tell me why you want to force women to go through the danger of pregnancy and childbirth against their will? Are you aware that carrying a baby to term is one of the most dangerous things a woman can do in her life?
Yes, is your life worth the inconvenience it caused your mother?
I see what you tried to do there, too. You tried once again to take the discussion off on a tangent, this time by making it personal.
It is interesting that you regard pregnancy and the raising of children as, at worst, an "inconvenience". I know you've never been pregnant. Maybe you've never raised children either, or maybe you have a wife who did/does the heavy lifting in that department. If you do have a wife, maybe you ought to ask her about her experience of pregnancy and the nurturing of children. You might learn something.
As for my mother, you'd have to ask her. I am incredibly grateful to her for bringing me into the world, for bringing me up and for supporting me in uncountable ways throughout my life. I hope that I have not been an unworthy recipient of her love and kindness, and that I have given something of value to her in return. I think I know what she would say to you in response to your impertinence, but I can't speak for her.
My apologies. I'm losing interest in this thread. It's a waste of time when I could be doing something about the issue of abortion. Don't you agree?
That depends. What are you going to do?
See, the thing is, Bowser, I don't think you're going to actually do anything. I think this is just an excuse to get out of the frying pan. It would be nice if I could take what you say at face value, but your ongoing lack of honesty makes that virtually impossible. You make your bed.
I think every woman is a goddess.
Saints or whores, is it? You sure do seem to be an expert on women.
Control. There have been over 45,000,000 million abortions in the U.S. If I were in control, there would be an additional 45,000,000+ potentially cool people in this world.
45 million potential criminals, mass murderers, wife beaters, drunks, etc.
But, you know, we can do better than guessing. We can look, for example, at the impact that
Roe v Wade had on crime rates 20 years down the track. Guess what? A lot of those unwanted children, who would otherwise have led difficult and troubled lives and being a criminal burden on society, were never born. How do you think that affected crime rates in the United States?
----
By the way, you ought to respond to Bells, too, before you leave the thread. How about making that a priority - you know, talk to a women about this? Or do you need to hear her questions from a man in order to take some notice?
