| Subject: For all ages. |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11/14/02 7:53am
In reply to:
Biff
's message, "Abortion, fun?" on 11/13/02 10:28pm
>
>Forgive me if I was not clear. When I stated "life" I
>was implying human life. Now, never having been a
>citizen of the U.S., I may not be entirely clear on
>what follows. However, the sanctity of human life is
>one principle upon which American Law is based. It is
>embodied in the Declaration of Independance. To me, it
>simply does not seem to fit that a nation which
>declares life as an unalienable human right can
>legalize homocide based esentially on age. Thus, it is
>not so much a matter of arbitrary morality as a matter
>of codified law. True, this law may be based upon a
>system of morality. However, this is a system which,
>being written into the constitution (which is
>essentially a contract between citizens and their
>government) the people agree to live under.
First of all, I would say to you that the U.S. only guarantees life conditionally. It says you have the right to pursue life as long as you don't commit a crime, as long as we don't go to war, as long as you kill in self defense (sometimes) It doesn't go as far as to say "Oh you are alive? Well then, here is your right to life. Live away." On the contrary, as you mentioned, it is a contract, and that contract has certain contingencies.
So, the U.S. does recognize that there are times and places when human rights as far as life is concerned can be put on hold. Clearly, as I stated before, that must mean there are other criteria other than being alive that make a difference when we are deciding whether something lives or dies. Being alive even under the constitution simply isn't good enough on its own.
>
>Not so much a definition of as evidence for.
Okay, the fetus is alive. Why is it entitled to live?
>
>Of course not. But again, the documents upon which
>American Law is based do not sanction the ending of
>human life. The Canadian Constitution states that
>"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security
>of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof
>except in accordance with the principles of
>fundamental justice." If a fetus is a human life it
>must be afforded these same rights.
Yes it does. I've alreadly pointed out several places in which it does, namely war and crime.
Now, as a different issue I'd ask why it is that you feel that the human fetus has more of a right to life than the human carrying it does a right to choose whether or not to continue on carrying it?
>
>The cases of women being forcibly impregnated make up
>a miniscule percentage of abortions. Even so, we do
>not execute anyone because his or her father commits
>murder. How can we allow it when a man commits rape?
I'm not sure it's so small anymore, and this still overlooks the rights of the victim as a definite human life. The baby has more of a right to live than the mother does to make a choice in the matter concerning her own body?
>
>You're right, the plane crash analogy is not quite the
>same. But only in that no reasonable measures could be
>taken on your part to prevent the situation from
>happening. The overwhelming majority of cases of
>unwanted pregnancy can be prevented before they occur.
By what? Abstinence? Abstinence as the catholic priests I think have shown, might as well be like asking a cat without first neutering it to please not go out and screw around. Human nature along with everything else on the planet is to procreate. That's a given. Asking someone not to abstain from sex might as well be asking them to be something other than a human, and the other condition of having sex still has an outside chance of getting someone pregnant.
>
>I stated nothing about morality. I pointed out the
>obviously flawed logic. This particular fetus'
>circumstances suddenly change. It still has the same
>capacities and composition it would have had inside
>the womb. It has simply changed it place of residence,
>you could say, and now it is protected. Based on any
>reasonable interpretation of Western law, this can't
>be justified.
Sure it can. Before another human being had certain rights you pointed out earlier. The fetus in essence less human, doesn't have those rights or at least as much say as the undeniable human. Once it is out of the body, it has rights of its own.
Damoclese
>
> In North
>>America, it happens to be christian values. The
>>santicty of human life etc. Clearly as I've shown
>>though, life in and of itself is no reason to warrant
>>life.
>
>Clearly as I've shown, abortion simply cannot be legal
>in a society with laws guaranteeing humans the right
>to life.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 