Pro life or Pro choice

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by sifreak21, Feb 2, 2012.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,062
    Wow.. okay..

    What about in the case of the mother's health, for example? Do you think the life of the fetus should take precedence over the mother's health or rights? You see, I find it interesting that you deem it 'murder' even if "the fetus is dead". Do you view women to be murderers if their bodies naturally reject the pregnancy and she aborts it naturally?

    You make a very strong claim in this thread, primarily that women and the medical profession who have and perform abortions do so with the specific intention to stop 'a person' from developing. That doctors, for example, are only in it to kill fetus because they want to stop a fetus from becoming a child, etc. The irony of your statement of course is that doctors who routinely perform abortions are also obstetricians and gynaecologists who would spend the majority of their time helping women give birth or making sure they can fall pregnant in the first place.

    If I was to take your argument seriously, then taking anti-biotics would make one a murderer, because the intention there is also to kill 'life'. The same would apply to someone who had cancer, for example, and underwent surgery to remove that growing 'tissue' and then blasting it with radiation to kill anything that is left behind. Is that murder in your opinion because the clear intention there is to "kill"?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,062
    Ah lovely..

    Another one from the 'school of Asguard'..

    Let me ask you a question. Since you believe that men should be given the choice to shirk their responsibilities if the woman decides to keep the child, a child he helped 'happen' when he made the choice to squirt his semen into her vagina, do you also think that men should be allowed to force women to have an abortion or to have the baby?

    After all, if men were given the choice or right to simply abandon their children because well, they can't be bothered being responsible for their own offspring because they choose not to, why should women even want to have children at all? Why should she be forced to bring up a child without the other person who helped bring that child into being gets the choice to opt out because that's his choice?

    I find it interesting that so many, mostly men mind you, have issues with women having a choice over what happens inside their own bodies that in response to the notion of women daring to have a right to choose what happens inside their own bodies, they demand to be allowed to shirk all responsibility over the results of their actions and claim that is choice.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    When a man can take over the process within his own body he will have a right to choose to do so or not. A woman has a right to choose whether or not to go through the risk, pain and trouble of carrying a fetus, period. If you don't like abortion then don't have one, but keep your nose out of other women's vaginas, it is none of your business.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    If more people would practice this philosophy, even outside the abortion topic, then the world would be a happier place.

    But some people just can't stand other people having differing opinions. And so we get the world we have.
     
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    If one has the intention to kill, and acts on it in one way or another to accomplish the act of killing, one is a murderer.


    :shrug:
     
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    What evidence can you cite that would support this prediction?


    Perhaps the Allies should just agree to disagree with the Nazis in WWII, and leave it at that?
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,062
    You actually did not answer the questions I asked. But okay, whatever. I know enough about how you post on this site to not expect you to actually address or answer questions. :shrug:
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,062
    Probably the same place you got your assertion that doctors perform abortions because they don't want a 'child' to be born and grow up.

    Your comment was also unsupported.

    He is making an educated guess that if people stopped placing demands on women's wombs, the world could possibly be a better place. Do you think you should have a say about what a woman living on the other side of the world does with the contents of her womb, for example?
     
  12. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Why else do they perform abortions??
    If not to stop that thing inside from growing, and to stop it from becoming what things of that kind otherwise naturally tend to become?



    What do you know about jurisdiction and abstract philosophical discussions?
     
  13. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    I think your missing the point . It is a sanctioned killing . It is not unlike the fight for the right to die really when you think about it . Except the mother is making the decision for the fetus whether life is worth living for the fetus . See this holds true for defective babies too. The mother has the choice to kill ( terminate)
    Did you see the movie terminator ? Do you realize the implications of that word ?
    Regardless if you think it is right or wrong it is still a termination of life.
    Sanctioned killing. It goes on whether people want to believe it or not in other ways in life . Consider the children that don't go see there relatives in the old folks home as they wither away into sub consciousness states. Yeah slow painful lonely times . A nurse flipping you over every other day if your lucky . Bed sores and bed pans for the rest of your born days until you die of the flue.
    I got off track .
    No mistake it is Sanctioned killing of life . The question is is it morel to kill under the right conditions . I vote yes . Now if the population was such that you needed growth then the mind set might be different for the situation . It might be Multiply. Being Flexible is how you survive. Adaption
    Where are we ? What time is it , What are the problems at hand and how do they relate to the actions we take
    Right now and for the time being we are in exponential human population growth . That tells me we sanction killing fetuses because of it . I am O.K. with it . Killem . And don't be shy about it . Better than getting shot down in the street when you are 5 or dieing lonely in an old folk home having a nurse turn you over every other day if your lucky .
     
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,062
    Because they are doctors who treat their patients.

    By things you mean a 'child'?


    Quite a bit actually.

    What do you know and understand about women's rights over their bodies and human emotion?

    It seems to escape your notice that the notion of 'pro-choice' is not only concerning America but it concerns women around the world. When you have charities and organisations, not to mention religious organisations (ie hospitals) refusing to donate to certain countries or refusing to treat a woman who may require an abortion as she is in the middle of a miscarriage and the heart of the fetus is still beating, it should be a global concern, don't you agree? Or do you think it is also murder if a woman is in the middle of a miscarriage and bleeding profusely and her doctors have to perform surgery to remove the miscarried fetus? Jurisdiction would not be a point of discussion if people in other countries were not dictating that women in the middle of a miscarriage must be denied treatment if there is still a fetal heartbeat. For example, would you say this was murder or life saving treatment?

    "Dr B, an obstetrician-gynecologist working in an academic medical center, described how a Catholic-owned hospital in her western urban area asked her to accept a patient who was already septic [suffering from infection].

    When she received the request, she recommended that the physician from the Catholic-owned hospital perform a uterine aspiration there and not further risk the health of the woman by delaying her care with the transport.

    [From the doctor:] “Because the fetus was still alive, they wouldn’t intervene. And she was hemorrhaging, and they called me and wanted to transport her, and I said, ‘‘It sounds like she’s unstable, and it sounds like you need to take care of her there.’’

    And I was on a recorded line, I reported them as an EMTALA violation. And the physician [said], ‘‘This isn’t something that we can take care of.’’ And I [said], ‘‘Well, if I don’t accept her, what are you going to do with her?’’

    [He answered], ‘‘We’ll put her on a floor [i.e., admit her to a bed in the hospital instead of keeping her in the emergency room]; we’ll transfuse her as much as we can, and we’ll just wait till the fetus dies.’’


    To me, this is a horrific situation. To you, if I were to apply your logic (if one could call it that) the mother and her doctors are murderers. You speak of course of jurisdiction. The decision to not treat women like the real case cited above comes from the Vatican. The hospital involved is in the United States. So tell me Wynn. What do you understand about jurisdiction when it comes to this subject?

    And you again failed to answer a simple question. Ah well..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,365
    Case:

    A doctor recommends that a woman with quadruplets get a selective reduction, since it is very likely that the quadruplets will not survive to birth. She does, and the remaining two babies are born healthy.

    Who goes to jail? The doctor? The woman? The twins?

    And if the pilot says "we can't land with him there and we're running out of fuel! Unless we get him off the plane, we're all going to die" then the intention is to save lives. Which is quite different.

    So a woman who uses an IUD is a murderer?
     
  16. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Who's talking about jail?

    People kill all the time, but only some killing is prosecuted.


    They clearly had no intention to save that man's life.
    They knew full well that if they cut the rope, the man will die.


    That will depend on which kind and definition of IUD you mean.
     
  17. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I guess PC can be used to cover up anything.
    :shrug:


    But those are not prosecutable murders. So what's the problem?


    Nowhere did I state that I am against any and all abortions.

    I just think that we ought to be in the clear what people's intentions are in these things.

    Like I said above, people kill all the time. It's a fact of life. But only some killings, including what given the intention are murders, are prosecutable.



    Watch out, Bells. All this contempt will make you sick.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,365
    Murder is prosecuted where possible. In a hospital with excellent records kept of everything, there is no doubt that someone would go to jail if your premise were correct.

    Fortunately, it is not.

    Correct. Their intention was to save everyone ELSE on the plane - and they succeeded. Thus they are not murderers, even though their actions killed another person.
     
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I guess ignorance of one's intentions is ... a kind of bliss.

    :bugeye:
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,365
    If you say so. Accurate knowledge of one's intentions is better, IMO - even if one must do unpleasant things to obtain the intended outcome.
     
  21. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    It's a given that people desire to be innocent. This sometimes means that they will tailor their explanation of their intentions and actions to fit the agenda of appearing innocent.
     
  22. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    And other people pretend to hold a moral viewpoint when the full implications of that viewpoint are increased human misery.
     
  23. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    People have the right not to be stupid.
    People have the right not to be greedy.
    People have the right not to be lusty.

    People are not obligated to follow up on every thought that pops up in their minds.

    People have the right to employ discernment.
     

Share This Page