Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nabubrush]

That is what I was trying to say.

[V-Adore]

Hate to jump in again wearing the Mod Hat, but yeah -- Pedro speaks the truth. I'm heartened to see a lot of people discuss this topic with respect and valid argumentation, and I'd like to see it continue, which means that everyone needs to rise to the same level of respect or leave.

That's all, folks.

[miles]

How can we not enter into the debate?

i'm of the mind such that i believe discussion is good, especially with parties who have opposing views.  compassion, empathy, and a desire to understand are virtues to me.

if i were in a situation wherein a thing were being discussed, a thing that had direct consequences to me and the specific group i were in, i'm sure that i would feel negatively about those outside of the group acting as though they were directly affected by those consequences and voicing their opinion as though their opinion were authority.  to whit, if the neighborhood i lived in was discussing whether or not to have a landfill built within it, my neighboars and i would be Directly and Immediately affected by the consequences of a landfill being built.  The Sweet and Sickening smell of garbage is an odor that does not leave my mind, having been a garbage man.  To have that odor permeate my daily life would make it hard to live.  To have someone from the next county say "the need for me to have a place to put my trash far away from me so i do not have to smell it outweighs the need for you to be happy and not smell the smell of garbage that makes you irrationaly sad" would make me want to hit someone with a hammer.

However, it would be naive and short-sighted of me to say that while i and my neighbors were directly affected by the discussion (or "debate" if you would) that noone outside of our neighborhood were affected by any consequence of said discussion.  those people not in our neighborhood still need a place to put their trash.

However, those outside the neighborhood must keep in mind that the consequences that they must deal with are NOT EQUAL TO the consequences that my neighbors and i must deal with.

Right.  But if it is the case that fetuses have a right to life, then it's a human rights issue, not just a reproductive rights issue, so my stakes are just as high in the debate as they would be in a debate about genocide in Africa (and I think they are pretty high there, though obviously not as high as the victims themselves).  Just because I'm not a potential mother or a fetus anymore doesn't mean that I can't have a say.   And I think it's far from decided whether fetuses have a right to life.  In fact, and I could be way off, but I believe in Germany they do, and there is a process in which a guardian is appointed to the fetus, to argue for it.  It's for show, from what I understand, but it's a different approach than in other places in the world where abortion is acceptable, where the right of the mother to choose completely trumps the right of the fetus to live.  To be clear, I'm not arguing for either side here, in fact I am much more sympathetic to the mother's right to choose, but it's far from decided.

[jough]

This is a message board where we discuss a cartoon.  If you can't be flip about baby murder, I don't know what the hell you can be flip about.  I'm just trying to keep my posts from becoming too angry.

And ark, I'd be all for a woman's right to choose her own destiny as long as you'd concede that a baby (which will eventually become a man or a woman) has that same right.

It's not a woman's right to choose that's even the issue - it's the rights of the CHILD I'm taking about.

Women have historically have had a difficult time in being able to express themselves or choose their own destinies without being subject to outward pressures, intimidation, and sometimes physical injury or death.  This is unfortunate and of course is a black eye on the success of human achievement as a whole.

Babies, on the other hand are utterly UNABLE to express themselves, fight for their own rights, or stop their own mothers from exterminating them.

Some people believe it is not proper to stop a mother from murdering her own baby.  But at what point is that child a sovereign entity of its own?  Should we really just stand by and allow these things to happen on a technicality? "Oh, if only you tried to kill your baby five minutes later we would try you for murder.  But I guess you're in the clear."

Basically I look at women getting late term abortions like the rest of the world looks at OJ Simpson.

[andalucia]

Basically I look at women getting late term abortions like the rest of the world looks at OJ Simpson.

When did late-term abortion become the issue here?  Scarcely anywhere (at least not any of the Morganthaler clinics in Canada) will perform them.

[slink]

Yeah, Jough, we (or was I alone) were not talking about late term. I was just discussing whether it should be illegalised at all. I disagree with late term abortion, but here in the UK late term abortions are illegal except under the most specialised circumstances (only medical as far as I know). Seems to be working out fine over here, but then we're probably all atheist scum in the eyes of Bush and his croonies.

Anyway, this time I'm staying out of it!

[Nabubrush]

Some people believe it is not proper to stop a mother from murdering her own baby.  But at what point is that child a sovereign entity of its own?  Should we really just stand by and allow these things to happen on a technicality? "Oh, if only you tried to kill your baby five minutes later we would try you for murder.  But I guess you're in the clear."

Basically I look at women getting late term abortions like the rest of the world looks at OJ Simpson.

Do you just not want to admit that some people don't see this as baby murder? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

[jough]

I think you're being obtuse.

The core of my point is at what point does it become baby murder?

If people that support abortion believe that late term (i.e. third trimester) is wrong, then at what point is it okay?  Would a week earlier be okay?

And if so, isn't that just a technicality?  

Again, people supporting abortion seem to cite the law, which isn't in question.  150 years ago women did not have the right to vote or own property.  Does this mean that they shouldn't be allowed to do these things now?

The line where you can dehumanise someone/thing is a fine one.  Why is it okay to kill a three month old fetus but not okay to kill a 34 year old woman?

For those who believe abortion is a-okay - where do you draw the line?

[Nabubrush]

I guess killing your own child is the only revenge you can get for that, right?

Does child murder not matter to you just because it's sanctioned by the state?

But shit, had you killed the baby five minutes before while only its head was sticking out of the womb, that's just late-term abortion - all nice and legal.

. . . but babies, meh, fuck them! I need my sleep!

I mis-read your posts. It seemed to me that you had already decided that anytime after conception, fetus=baby. Since you still have not decided at what point abortion=baby murder, I apologize.

[Va]

So that's where I call the line, at ~12 weeks.

I used to think this.  Having seen my 12 week old baby looking extremely human in ultrasound, now I'm not so sure.  Actually, my standard used to be, does it have a brain, because I believe self=mind=brain.

I won't bother detailing my current position on abortion, because it is ludicrous science fiction, but it was the only way I could think of that didn't violate someone's rights.

[AugustWest]

I'm not exactly sure where my line is.  The point, however, is that I should be able to decide where my line is, not the government.  

That's not to suggest that I believe in full-term abortions -- There is a place for some reasonable limitation on when abortion is appropriate.  After viability, for instance.  However, prior to that point I think there's a huge gray area that involves one's personal morals and philosophy.  Where reasonable people can differ, I don't think it's appropriate for the government to impose one set of moral values on all of us.

[arkabee]

The core of my point is at what point does it become baby murder?

indeed, a good question.

perhaps the question could also be phrased:

at what point does it become a baby?

because that certainly would help determine at what point it becomes "baby murder".

and if it turns out that it does not become a baby until X period of time into the pregnancy, then you'll have to come up with another incindiary phrase for abortions prior to X period of time into a pregnancy.

what does spermacide do to the baby making process?

what do birth control pills do to the baby making process?

if a woman has a misscarriage, did her body undergo an abortion on of its own biological mandate?  a misscarriage is certainly an aborted pregnancy.  is her uterus a baby killer, and as such as the controller of her uterus is she a baby killer?

i don't know at what point it becomes baby murder, because i do not know at what point it becomes a baby.

It's not a woman's right to choose that's even the issue - it's the rights of the CHILD I'm taking about.

but we aren't even sure at what point it becomes a BABY let alone a CHILD.

and what rights _do_ a child have?  

are we talking universal civil rights, or specific national rights?  the right to live or die?  the right to starve to death? the right to be carpet bombed when you are outside playing with your friends?

or perhaps the right to be brought up thinking that irrational hatred based upon a person's skin color (a seemingly existent "right" here-bouts.)?  or the right to be left to the state for care in an orphanage or adoption?  or the right to be raised by a television set?

or the right to be ignorant and have the void that ignorance makes filled piece at a time ladled from the cup of knowledge?  or the right to have limited responsibilities due to incapacity to make reasoned decisions?  or the right to work in a factory as soon as physically able?  

or the right to be entirely dependent upon others for their own survival?


it would seem to me that a CHILD'S rights are a discussion worthy of its own context, not intermixed with the emotional fervor eminating from the discussion of when does it become baby murder.

And ark, I'd be all for a woman's right to choose her own destiny as long as you'd concede that a baby (which will eventually become a man or a woman) has that same right.

i can not concede that a baby has the right to choose its own destiny, because i do not believe that that is a universal right; for if i were to believe that, then surely i must fall upon the deepest depression since the world that i live in has surely stripped all babies of that "right", and a world where the universe itself can strip all of humanity of a universal right is surely not a world fit for humanity to live.

i feel that with rights come responsibilities, and an infant/baby/child can have no universal responsibilities to the world or to society, for HOW COULD IT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACT UPON ITS RESPONSIBILITIES?

It is the responsibility of a parent to care for a baby/child, it is the baby/child's privilege to be taken care of.


so, it would appear, jough, as though you will not "concede" "a woman's right to choose her own destiny".

Some people believe it is not proper to stop a mother from murdering her own baby. But at what point is that child a sovereign entity of its own? Should we really just stand by and allow these things to happen on a technicality? "Oh, if only you tried to kill your baby five minutes later we would try you for murder. But I guess you're in the clear."

I believe that i understand, possibly, where you are coming from if not exactly what you are trying to say.

I agree, jough, that "killin' babies" is a BAD THING.  however, i do not see it from the perspective that babies have rights, per se, so much as parents have RESPONSIBILITIES.  responsibilities to themselves, to their children, to society, etc.

that being said, i would state that a child becomes "a sovereign entity of its own" upon reaching "adulthood".  and upon reaching that "stage", achieves both its RIGHTS and its RESPONSIBILITIES.

the specific time frame of "upon reaching "adulthood"" would seem to be a discussion in and of itself, as well...

[arkabee]

Where reasonable people can differ, I don't think it's appropriate for the government to impose one set of moral values on all of us.

i'd like to take a moment of everyone's time to state that i agree 100% with this statement.

[wombat]

As Jough says, this is a messageboard where we discuss a cartoon. I've never done this before, but I think this has gone far enough and I'm going to lock it.  If one of the other mods wants to open it up, go ahead, as long as you want to keep monitoring it without me.

[jough]

It is the responsibility of a parent to care for a baby/child, it is the baby/child's privilege to be taken care of.

Well, this is where I (and U.S. law) differ from you, then.

I believe you also wrote that you did not think that people did not become sovereign entities with human rights until they reached emotional or mental adulthood, in which case I would say you should probably be careful about killing Adam Sandler because you'll probably see at least SOME jail time for his murder.

There's no sense in arguing with someone who doesn't believe that a seven year old girl should not be killed because she's not a person in your eyes (not being an adult yet).

You're hard-core, buddy.  Even Dick Cheney is going "Whoa, that's fuck*ng harsh!"