Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Who has the right to life?


Melanie_

Recommended Posts

It becomes our business at least at the point where the fetus would be viable outside the womb, then it is a life and would be murder.

I don't have a problem with abortion in the early stages, and don't have a real problem with aborting for

Down's Syndrome or worse, but some people with Downs are able to work and be part of society, many places give them work opportunities. Can the test determine to what degree they are affected, and where would we decide to draw the line.

I do agree it is a slippery slope, where do we stop, abort all female babies if we want a male, or vice versa, would we abort all babies who had say, an IQ below 'average', where would it end.

Then we can get into euthanasia and maybe go Dutch:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...04/616jszlg.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 379
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can't understand why anyone would think that reducing the number of down syndrome kids is a bad thing.

I have worked professionally with Down's Syndrome indivuals for 15 years and I find your statement reprehensible. A woman's right to choose is one thing, but your suggestion that Down's kids are unworthy of life runs close to hate mongering. These are valued people who do contribute to society. Thank God you are not in any position to dictate social policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're correct, self determination, for whatever the reason is no one else's business but the woman's. Privacy and self-determination rights make it no one else's business.

Ugh, here we go again. A woman can do anything because she's a woman.

Does that include making consistantly irrational arguments devoid of any explaination of your logic?

Having never made consistently irrational arguements devoid of any explanations I would not know about what you refer to.

The logic is contained in the very same statemnt you quoted of mine. It is not only logic, it is Rights that are a fact based in law. And there is no argument involved at all.

Men feel they can do anything because they are a man, so indeed, why do you oppose the same state of equality for women?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not only logic, it is Rights that are a fact based in law. And there is no argument involved at all.

Wrong again. Don;t you get tired of being wrong all the time? There is currently NO abortion laws in Canada. None. Ergo there are no 'rights' based in law.

Did you hear/read me say abortion laws? NO.

Did you hear/read me says Rights laws? Yes, and the Rights law are primarily and overall other things.

Again, please try to keep personal commentary out of the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, mister 'i hate social programs', what business do you have telling other people that they should bear the huge cost of raising a disabled child in a society where there would be no support from the gov't (at least in the society that you would like to see).

Riverwind, it's good to agree with you on something!

Read my quote in my profile. I think this is a deeply sensitive and personal issue for him. I'm taking all that he says with a grain of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read my quote in my profile. I think this is a deeply sensitive and personal issue for him. I'm taking all that he says with a grain of salt.

Not really. Making it a personal attack on the other hand is just about your level. My quotation of your comments was your entire statement on the issue, and fairly reflects your view on the matter, does it not?

Good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not only logic, it is Rights that are a fact based in law. And there is no argument involved at all.

Logic and facts should never be confused with rights and laws. A right just means someone can get enough support for a position to have it made into law. Logic and facts may have little or nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My quotation of your comments was your entire statement on the issue, and fairly reflects your view on the matter, does it not?

No, actually, it was out of context because it was in response to your slippery-slope argument of "first babies with down's syndrome, next all brown-eyed babies or anything thing we may not like" and it was intended to make a distinction between your inane argument and reality.

Personally, I don't know if I would even ask for such a test, yet alone go through with it if I didn't like the results. But I do respect other people's decision to do what they want with their fetuses.

Either that or else you caught me! I secretly do think we could do without brown-eyed babies..... well, unless they look like Justin Trudeau. :o

:P:lol::P:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait until the perfect baby comes along, I see.

You see, I was supposed to have serious mental issues when I was born, but to the doctor's suprise, I turned out above average in that regard. So really, this screening stuff is BS and will result in many terminations that are unneccessary and plain and simply quite Brave New Worldish.

There are a lot of severe disorders that could be screened out.

Given the right wing's tendency to say medical areas should be privatized, I don't see how they can say this should be a decision a parent can't make.

I don't think that ultrasounds should be used to screen for male or females just for abortion purposes but then again, abortion is a choice a parent makes for a variety of reasons.

As far as Down's Syndrome goes, we've had it in our family and were it not government support, my family would have been bankrupted. Even with help, it is a huge task and while we loved this family member with all our hearts, it was a full-time job caring for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait until the perfect baby comes along, I see.

You see, I was supposed to have serious mental issues when I was born, but to the doctor's suprise, I turned out above average in that regard. So really, this screening stuff is BS and will result in many terminations that are unneccessary and plain and simply quite Brave New Worldish.

There are a lot of severe disorders that could be screened out.

Given the right wing's tendency to say medical areas should be privatized, I don't see how they can say this should be a decision a parent can't make.

I don't think that ultrasounds should be used to screen for male or females just for abortion purposes but then again, abortion is a choice a parent makes for a variety of reasons.

As I recall, addicts are "degenerates" according to him. I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem aborting the "degenerate" gene babies. ;)

Hypocrisy at its finest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not only logic, it is Rights that are a fact based in law. And there is no argument involved at all.

Wrong again. Don;t you get tired of being wrong all the time? There is currently NO abortion laws in Canada. None. Ergo there are no 'rights' based in law.

You are correct, Canada does not have an abortion law, therefore there are no rights enshrined law. Can't be, there isn't one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genetic testing is in itself,a neutral entity.

We ascribe all sorts of horrible possibilites of what might happen if we

misuse any sort of technological or medical advances.

The truth I see is that we will have people who will see it in an opportunity

to make it easier to make choices whether to have a baby,based on medical evidence

and that can only be a good thing,no?

Abortion,already a difficult dilemna for many women,can be made a little easier if they

have a basis for their decision that they can live with.

How many women base their decision to abort on the possibilty of genetic abnormalities?.

The earlier the testing can be done the better,to sidestep arguements about when life begins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logic and facts should never be confused with rights and laws. A right just means someone can get enough support for a position to have it made into law. Logic and facts may have little or nothing to do with it.

I've tried to draw the distinction between logically derived ethics and law to her before, but she seems to think that all law is inherently right.

Even trying to get her to admit that there is an ethical situation there is impossible. The law says a woman can do whatever (actually, there is no law...) so that's it, no argument is allowed.

Hmmmm...

I secretly do think we could do without brown-eyed babies..... well, unless they look like Justin Trudeau.

I have to wonder where he got the brown eyes from. Mommy and daddy had bright blue eyes. According to a thread that August commented on, blue eyes are a requirement for political success... I'm trying to find the thread, I'll edit when I do. Maybe this is why Justin won't be succesful in politics?

As I recall, addicts are "degenerates" according to him. I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem aborting the "degenerate" gene babies. ;)

The babies don't choose that path, drug addicts do choose to use drugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO life doesn't begin at conception, so it's the parents' choice if they decide to abort the fetus.

Do you also think that the Earth is 6000 years old? How could you be so dumb as to think that LIFE does not begin at conception? You think that the fetus is dead yet still growing and developing? Do you write for the national enquirer?

Find me ONE scientist that agrees that life does not begin at conception?

Thanks for putting so much 'thought' into this....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because a fetus is dependant on the mother to live, how does that infer ownership of said fetus?

There is MORE ownership to the mother than you, me or anyone else. That's the point, whether or not you agree that it's "ownership."

That's NOT the point. The Point is that fetus is alive. Why does the mother have the right to kill it?

just asking? Where does this 'right' to kill come from?

How do men get this 'right' to kill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once men start carrying the fetus then they will have the right to abort or not.

As it stands today, women (ergo, the female gender in 99% of species) carries the offspring. So it remains the female's decision - and, in our wonderful western society, women have dominion over their own bodies. ('cept for in some backward states where abortion has recently become illegal)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once men start carrying the fetus then they will have the right to abort or not.

As it stands today, women (ergo, the female gender in 99% of species) carries the offspring. So it remains the female's decision - and, in our wonderful western society, women have dominion over their own bodies. ('cept for in some backward states where abortion has recently become illegal)

But the fetus isn't part of a woman's body. It is only dependant upon it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly White.

For six to eight months the feus is entirely dependant on the woman's body for sustenance.

When and if someone invents a way of aborting the fetus and keeping it alive artifically until it can live on it's own, then others can have a say in what happens to it.

As it stands today the female MUST carry the fetus or abort the fetus. These are the only two choices currently available.

What about that 1 hour old baby that was found on a doorstep at 29 below? Apparently the 18 yo girl hid her pregnancy under baggy clothes and obviously didn't get any counselling or assistance whatsoever. She gave birth by herself.

I'd be interested to know her parents' reaction to the whole mess. At 18 one is old enough to have sex if they so choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...