(December 1, 2015 at 1:08 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 2:08 am)Nestor Wrote: I certainly don't care what a woman does with her body, though at some point when her pregnancy is far enough along that the fetus is viable I do think there is an ethical dilemma.

And anti-choicers bank on that ethical dilemma when they force through legislation making it harder and harder for women to have abortions prior to fetal viability.  They close down clinics and implement ridiculous requirements for the remaining clinics to be licensed as ambulatory surgical centers and for physicians performing the procedures to have admitting privileges at hospitals as a way of making it difficult for women to get the procedure done before the fetus can survive outside the womb.  And once that magic line is crossed, they then demonize the woman for wanting to kill a baby that could survive if she would only just give birth to it.

Sure, but don't confuse fanatics who use religion or their bully pulpit with those who have legitimate concerns about the treatment of human life, particularly such that can be justifiably considered persons and may even deserve some protection - if not under the law, at least in the battle of ideas. If you think that a woman who carries the human being inside of her to the point of viability, and then decides to kill it, is guilty of a moral atrocity, then the issue is no more about demonization in that instance as it would be in any other wherein a person kills another person for some reason. If you think demonization would be appropriate in the case that a person killed another without justification, then you're special pleading by demanding that this one situation be excepted. 

Quote:

Quote:United States Constitution
Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

By telling women that by becoming pregnant they effective lose their right to make decisions about their own body, you are turning them into people under involuntary servitude to the baby growing inside them.  You are effectively turning them into slaves.

Quote:United States Constitution
Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unborn fetuses are not legally considered citizens of the United States, so when you say that a pregnant woman loses the right to make decisions about her own body once pregnant in deference to the baby growing inside her, you are taking rights away from a recognized citizen and giving rights to a baby who is not a citizen, has no legal standing and who, for 24-28 of the 40 weeks we're talking about, cannot even independently survive (depending on the developmental maturity of the baby)

If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one.

If you think it's wrong to abort a pregnancy, fine, nobody is stopping you from having that opinion.

But do not shame women for having to make an incredibly difficult decision.  Do not take away their choice about what happens to them.  Do not shackle them to the medical consequences of a pregnancy against their will.  Don't tell them it's only nine months and they can put it up for adoption once its born like it's easy to go to work with morning sickness and fatigue, like it's easy to be a single pregnant woman or a married mother who knows she can't afford another child, like it's easy to be reminded every day that you were raped.

Women have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies.

Everyone has the right to decide what happens to their own bodies.

I have the right to decide what happens to my body.

Do not take my rights away.

When it comes to moral issues, I don't really care what legal status a person has. To kill a non-citizen without justification is not somehow less of a crime than it is to kill a legal citizen. If a fetus is developed to the point that it has all of the biological equipment required for its survival outside of the womb, then it's own body ought to be considered along with it's mother's, regardless if one has citizenship while the other doesn't. Of course an abortion for the vast majority constitutes an incredibly difficult decision, and since we are talking about terminating a human being in its early stages of development, that's absolutely the way it should be. That sexual intercourse practiced irresponsibly can easily result in the conception of a human life should also be taken seriously, and the decision to engage in such behavior without taking the necessary precautions such as birth control, the morning after pill, condoms, or - my favorite - the pullout method, should also be incredibly difficult for any person who has no desire to bring another life into the world. If it was all about you and your body, there would be no debate to be had. It's also about the child and his/her body. Don't take their rights away - and I don't mean the rights that depend on recognition from the state.

It's not a child yet. It's an embryo.

(December 1, 2015 at 6:21 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: How do we not have the right to be in our mother's wombs when that is what we evolved to do? That is what humanity's existance depends on. And our bodies evolved specifically to cater to that. You might as well say we don't have the right to use up oxygen from the Earth's air or something lol. That is the whole evolutionary purpose of why we have that entire part of our bodies. A fetus is supposed to be there. So yes, it has the right to be there. That is the natural order of our world and of the continuation of the human species. 

How does a man's penis not have the right to be in a woman's vagina when that is what the vagina was evolved to accomodate? That is what humanity's existance depends on. And our bodies evolved specifically to cater to that. You might as well say we don't have the right to use up oxygen from the Earth's air or something lol. That is the whole evolutionary purpose of why we have that entire part of our bodies. A penis is supposed to be in a vagina. So yes, it has the right to be there. That is the natural order of our world and of the continuation of the human species.

Ladies and Gentlemen
Presented to you by the Naturalistic Fallacy
We bring you:
A Justification for Rape

(December 1, 2015 at 7:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: All life is sacred, of course. And yes, I believe that killing an animal for food is justifiable, but killing them because you don't want to take care of them is not.

Not all abortions take place because the woman simply doesn't want to care for the baby though - what a gross oversimplification of what women go through when considering abortion.  I cannot think of a more justifiable situation in which a pregnancy should be aborted than an ectopic pregnancy.  If an ectopic pregnancy is not aborted the woman can die.  That has nothing to do with the woman deciding to kill her precious little baby just because she doesn't want to take care of it.  There are also health considerations that women have to make: my best friend has an aunt who is bed ridden because she had so many c-sections that it became dangerous for her to get pregnant again - but she got pregnant again.  Now she has a c-section wound that will never completely heal and a gaggle of kids she's can't properly care for.

Stop making it sound like abortion is nothing but a selfish choice made out of convenience.

(December 1, 2015 at 8:00 pm)Mermaid Wrote: It's not a child yet. It's an embryo.

As I've made abundantly clear, I'm talking about a fetus that is at least 24-28 weeks along in its development.

(December 1, 2015 at 7:49 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 7:47 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: What if the food goes to waste? Like it reaches it's expiry date without being sold. Does killing the animal become unjustified retroactively?

I wouldn't say so, because that was not the intent. What about you? What do you think?

I really am just trying to find where the line is, that is why I keep asking questions.

How much of the animal needs to be intended as food for it to be ok?  Is shark finning morally ok, since people are eating the fin?  

There are cultures that insist on using most or all of a slaughtered animal, but most westerners waste an enormous amount of the animals they kill for food.  Do you, for instance, mind eating the stomach, rectum, testicles, etc?  Some of that gets turned into dog food, sure, but not all of it.  A lot of the dead animal you are eating just gets thrown away, same as the cat fetus's.

I mean, you are using the word SACRED here.  
Have you ever heard of Jainism?  Jains kill nothing, they even make sure they don't step on bugs.  They do not beleive in killing even in self defense.  Now if a Jain said to me, "I think all life is sacred", I'm going to take them at their word because they also actually practice what they are saying.  But you are saying that all life is sacred, and then giving exceptions, so I'm just trying to understand why you think there can be exceptions.

(December 1, 2015 at 8:02 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 8:00 pm)Mermaid Wrote: It's not a child yet. It's an embryo.

As I've made abundantly clear, I'm talking about a fetus that is at least 24-28 weeks along in its development.

Mea culpa then.

(December 1, 2015 at 8:01 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 6:21 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: How do we not have the right to be in our mother's wombs when that is what we evolved to do? That is what humanity's existance depends on. And our bodies evolved specifically to cater to that. You might as well say we don't have the right to use up oxygen from the Earth's air or something lol. That is the whole evolutionary purpose of why we have that entire part of our bodies. A fetus is supposed to be there. So yes, it has the right to be there. That is the natural order of our world and of the continuation of the human species. 

How does a man's penis not have the right to be in a woman's vagina when that is what the vagina was evolved to accomodate? That is what humanity's existance depends on. And our bodies evolved specifically to cater to that. You might as well say we don't have the right to use up oxygen from the Earth's air or something lol. That is the whole evolutionary purpose of why we have that entire part of our bodies. A penis is supposed to be in a vagina. So yes, it has the right to be there. That is the natural order of our world and of the continuation of the human species.

Ladies and Gentlemen
Presented to you by the Naturalistic Fallacy
We bring you:
A Justification for Rape

(December 1, 2015 at 7:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: All life is sacred, of course. And yes, I believe that killing an animal for food is justifiable, but killing them because you don't want to take care of them is not.

Not all abortions take place because the woman simply doesn't want to care for the baby though - what a gross oversimplification of what women go through when considering abortion.  I cannot think of a more justifiable situation in which a pregnancy should be aborted than an ectopic pregnancy.  If an ectopic pregnancy is not aborted the woman can die.  That has nothing to do with the woman deciding to kill her precious little baby just because she doesn't want to take care of it.  There are also health considerations that women have to make: my best friend has an aunt who is bed ridden because she had so many c-sections that it became dangerous for her to get pregnant again - but she got pregnant again.  Now she has a c-section wound that will never completely heal and a gaggle of kids she's can't properly care for.

Stop making it sound like abortion is nothing but a selfish choice made out of convenience.

Also, insert the words "cannot" for "don't want to", because some of the non life and death situations for abortion have to do with women who already have more children than they can feed or care for properly, or who are physically or mentally incapable in some way.  I wish CL would read some articles by Christians who understand that poverty, mental illness, youth, and so many other things are actual reasons, and not just excuses.

(December 1, 2015 at 7:11 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 7:05 pm)Aroura Wrote: Actually, different people are making vastly different arguments in this thread.  Don't lump us all together just because you personally, or one other person in this thread, takes one extreme position or the other.

Most people are not extremists on the issue of abortion.  Very few take the position that it is always or never ok.  You have taken one extreme position of never, but most people in this thread (and most people in America, according to survey's btw) have only said it is sometimes acceptable, and there is a wide range of opinions on when and why that might be.

The vast majority of Americans do not view this as a black/white, either/or position.  Those who do are extremists on this topic, and make up less than 20% of the population.

I didn't mean to lump everyone together. From what I understand, everyone who has been having this discussion with me has the position that a mother should always have the legal right to abort. My responses are to them. If I misunderstood someone, I do apologize.

That certainly is not my position.

I am not trying to be pedantic, but here is the definition of Sacred:

sacred
[sey-krid] 
adjective
1.
devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2.
entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.
3.
pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to secular or profane ):
sacred music; sacred books.
4.
reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object:
a morning hour sacred to study.
5.
regarded with reverence:
the sacred memory of a dead hero.
6.
secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right:
sacred oaths; sacred rights.
7.
properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.
___________________________________

So which of these do you mean, CL?  You can't mean the "related to or connected to religion" bit, so it has to be the "secured against violation, infringement, etc." or possibly the more general "regarded with reverence", but if that is the case, why is it ok to eat any living thing?  We don't need to.  We have no physical need for meat in modern, western society.  Is it ok because society says so, and because....bacon??

And this isn't even getting into issues with plant life (which we constantly kill because we just think they are ugly, annoying, or just in the way).

If you think human life is sacred, and you define human life as this:



Then fine. 
I disagree with you, and I think even your holy book disagrees with you, but at least you are picking with something and sticking to it.  But if you define ALL LIFE as SACRED, then your world view and your life style are completely incompatible.  You are making up your morals as you go along (or cherry picking them), whatever society finds acceptable, just like we are.

(December 1, 2015 at 7:49 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(December 1, 2015 at 7:47 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: What if the food goes to waste? Like it reaches it's expiry date without being sold. Does killing the animal become unjustified retroactively?

I wouldn't say so, because that was not the intent. What about you? What do you think?

I have no idea, I was toying with the idea that killing something can be determined to be right or wrong based on the context of the action, when context is always open to change and the interpretation of contextual factors are highly subject to the observer's biases and misconceptions. If the expired pork gets thrown out, all whole lot of vermin will be fed, what we'd call a waste of food is beneficial from the perspective of scavengers. If the pork had been consumed, those vermin may have gone hungry, is that justified?