| Subject: ...all ages above zero |
Author:
Biff
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11/17/02 9:11pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "For all ages." on 11/14/02 7:53am
>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.
Okay. So what has any fetus done which should offer justifiable conditions for revoking its right to life? It has not murdered any other human, has not gone to war, etc. It has simply been brought into existence by the actions of two other people, actions over which it had no control. For this its life can be terminated?
In addition, The Declaration of Independance describes the right to life as "unalienable." My understanding is that this means unable to be removed or transferred. Now what this means for matters like capital punishment or war is another discussion. But it does imply that the right to life is not conditional.
>Okay, the fetus is alive. Why is it entitled to live?
Is this an admission? Given that we accept that a fetus is a living human, it is not necessary to provide justification for its right to life. Rather, if it is to be terminated, justification must be given to end its life. None of us is required to prove that we are entitled to live, we have already been granted that right. If someone's right to life is to be forfeited, it must be shown that there is good reason for that, i.e. this person deliberately killed another, this person betrayed national security, etc.
>>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.
You're right, our prisons are overrun with fetuses.
>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?
This is the part of the pro-choice argument which never ceases to amaze me. If you stop the average person on the street and ask them simply, without introducing the topic of abortion: "Which is more fundamental, the right of an innocent person to live or the freedom of a person to choose their circumstance?" the vast majority of people would answer, "life," without hesitation. This is why murder has a greater penalty than kidnapping. Bring it up in the context of abortion and suddenly, for some reason, it's so very complicated. I contend that this "complication" is, for the most part, political correctness.
>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?
Again, the right to life versus freedom of choice. Which is more fundamental?
>>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 stand before you as an example of a human who successfully abstained from sex before marriage. It wasn't easy, I admit, but it was a value that I held in high regard and I maintained it. So it is possible. And I don't think you necessarily have to be a Christian to do it. We all have a choice whether to engage in any form of behaviour.
Believe it or not, there have been societies which never really had any problems like unwanted pregnancies. If a woman was found to be pregnant outside of marriage she was considered to be guilty of so high a crime that she was executed. Now I certainly do not advocate that. But I think there is a moral standard here from which our society can benefit. I think virtually everyone would agree that in a perfect world there would be no need for abortion, for there would be no unwanted pregnancies. Abstainance outside of marriage would achieve that. And I simply don't buy the argument that this is an unrealistic expectation.
>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.
Oh, so now the fetus is less human. Wouldn't that make the mother less pregnant? I had no idea there were degrees of humanity. You're either human or you're not, and until we can undeniably prove that the fetus is not, we must at least grant it the right to live, as we do every other human.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 