| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Kungfool" |
| Date: |
21 Jun 2004 05:52:18 PM |
| Object: |
Has the pro-life/choice debate lost its way? |
An issue that has been bothering me for a long time is the way the
line seems to be drawn down the pro-life/pro-choice dilemma. It seems
that we assume that pro-life = "killing a fetus is wrong" and
pro-choice = "killing a fetus is ok." Then disagreement always ensues
over the moral and philosophical issues of killing a fetus. It just
seems to me that this argument will never be resolved because
different religions and individuals will always have a different
perspective on this issue. If the government were to pass any laws,
that would be a validation of one religion over another.
Why can't we shift our perspective on the whole issue? Rather than
argue over the moral issues involved with killing a fetus, can't we
focus on what really seems to be the question for our society:
Do any of us have the right to tell a person which choice is the right
one? Or should we all make that choice individually.
I think the pro-life/choice debate has lost its way… We should really
be focusing on the morality of allowing individual choice, or making
one universal choice for everyone. Do we have the right to do that?
.
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Has the pro-life/choice debate lost its way? |
21 Jun 2004 07:35:07 PM |
|
|
"Kungfool" <kungfool@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6378023a.0406211452.7e146b8a@posting.google.com...
An issue that has been bothering me for a long time is the way the
line seems to be drawn down the pro-life/pro-choice dilemma. It seems
that we assume that pro-life = "killing a fetus is wrong" and
pro-choice = "killing a fetus is ok." Then disagreement always ensues
over the moral and philosophical issues of killing a fetus. It just
seems to me that this argument will never be resolved because
different religions and individuals will always have a different
perspective on this issue. If the government were to pass any laws,
that would be a validation of one religion over another.
$$ And they will also cause the death of more women as they're forced back
into illegal, unsanitary, backyard abortion shops. Outlawing abortion will
not stop women from having abortions.
Why can't we shift our perspective on the whole issue? Rather than
argue over the moral issues involved with killing a fetus, can't we
focus on what really seems to be the question for our society:
Do any of us have the right to tell a person which choice is the right
one? Or should we all make that choice individually.
$$ It should be made individually.
I think the pro-life/choice debate has lost its way. We should really
be focusing on the morality of allowing individual choice, or making
one universal choice for everyone. Do we have the right to do that?
$$ No. A universal choice for everyone is absurd. Everyone's morality
differs. No one but the women involved can know her circumstances and why
she wants to abort an unwanted fetus.
--
FPower.......
But look what your Jehovah god said in his bible:
Psalm 137:9
"Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the
stones." (Infanticide was approved by god)
======================================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Has the pro-life/choice debate lost its way? |
21 Jun 2004 10:58:28 PM |
|
|
(Kungfool) wrote in message news:<6378023a.0406211452.7e146b8a@posting.google.com>...
An issue that has been bothering me for a long time is the way the
line seems to be drawn down the pro-life/pro-choice dilemma. It seems
that we assume that pro-life = "killing a fetus is wrong" and
pro-choice = "killing a fetus is ok." Then disagreement always ensues
over the moral and philosophical issues of killing a fetus. It just
seems to me that this argument will never be resolved because
different religions and individuals will always have a different
perspective on this issue. If the government were to pass any laws,
that would be a validation of one religion over another.
Why can't we shift our perspective on the whole issue? Rather than
argue over the moral issues involved with killing a fetus, can't we
focus on what really seems to be the question for our society:
Do any of us have the right to tell a person which choice is the right
one? Or should we all make that choice individually.
I think the pro-life/choice debate has lost its way? We should really
be focusing on the morality of allowing individual choice, or making
one universal choice for everyone. Do we have the right to do that?
Not only the right,but the duty .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Has the pro-life/choice debate lost its way? |
22 Jun 2004 12:00:35 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9c2d0f9a.0406211958.57f4605e@posting.google.com...
I think the pro-life/choice debate has lost its way? We should really
be focusing on the morality of allowing individual choice, or making
one universal choice for everyone. Do we have the right to do that?
Not only the right,but the duty .
====================================
The duty to force women back to the illegal abortionists? Why bother?
--
BTW,.... I'm PRO-CHOICE! :-)
Flower Power...
pro-choice (pr-chois)
adj.
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose
whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Pro-Choice
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Has the pro-life/choice debate lost its way? |
22 Jun 2004 02:48:45 PM |
|
|
(J Young) wrote in message news:<9c2d0f9a.0406211958.57f4605e@posting.google.com>...
kungfool@gmail.com (Kungfool) wrote in message news:<6378023a.0406211452.7e146b8a@posting.google.com>...
An issue that has been bothering me for a long time is the way the
line seems to be drawn down the pro-life/pro-choice dilemma. It seems
that we assume that pro-life = "killing a fetus is wrong" and
pro-choice = "killing a fetus is ok." Then disagreement always ensues
over the moral and philosophical issues of killing a fetus. It just
seems to me that this argument will never be resolved because
different religions and individuals will always have a different
perspective on this issue. If the government were to pass any laws,
that would be a validation of one religion over another.
Why can't we shift our perspective on the whole issue? Rather than
argue over the moral issues involved with killing a fetus, can't we
focus on what really seems to be the question for our society:
Do any of us have the right to tell a person which choice is the right
one? Or should we all make that choice individually.
I think the pro-life/choice debate has lost its way? We should really
be focusing on the morality of allowing individual choice, or making
one universal choice for everyone. Do we have the right to do that?
Not only the right,but the duty .
We have the right and the duty to oppose the oppressive forces that
you represent that wish to deny people their rights, their liberties,
and their freedoms. And that includes defending women's rights to
decide for themselves whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term
without hinderance, the right for homosexuals to get married, and the
right of people to believe and practice any religious beliefs that
they wish, or none at all, without being forced to practice or honor
any religious beliefs that are not their own.
Very simply, we have the right and duty to protect the rights of the
individual against oppressive organizations that wish to take away
those rights.
BUSH MUST GO
IN 2004
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Has the pro-life/choice debate lost its way? |
22 Jun 2004 01:02:34 AM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
kungfool@gmail.com (Kungfool) wrote in message news:<6378023a.0406211452.7e146b8a@posting.google.com>...
An issue that has been bothering me for a long time is the way the
line seems to be drawn down the pro-life/pro-choice dilemma. It seems
that we assume that pro-life = "killing a fetus is wrong" and
pro-choice = "killing a fetus is ok." Then disagreement always ensues
over the moral and philosophical issues of killing a fetus. It just
seems to me that this argument will never be resolved because
different religions and individuals will always have a different
perspective on this issue. If the government were to pass any laws,
that would be a validation of one religion over another.
Why can't we shift our perspective on the whole issue? Rather than
argue over the moral issues involved with killing a fetus, can't we
focus on what really seems to be the question for our society:
Do any of us have the right to tell a person which choice is the right
one? Or should we all make that choice individually.
I think the pro-life/choice debate has lost its way? We should really
be focusing on the morality of allowing individual choice, or making
one universal choice for everyone. Do we have the right to do that?
Not only the right,but the duty .
We have the duty to force you to work 100-hour weeks, give up your
money and freedom, and make you give up parts of your body in order
to keep other people alive?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert B. Winn" |
|
| Title: Re: Has the pro-life/choice debate lost its way? |
21 Jun 2004 10:45:16 PM |
|
|
(Kungfool) wrote in message news:<6378023a.0406211452.7e146b8a@posting.google.com>...
An issue that has been bothering me for a long time is the way the
line seems to be drawn down the pro-life/pro-choice dilemma. It seems
that we assume that pro-life = "killing a fetus is wrong" and
pro-choice = "killing a fetus is ok." Then disagreement always ensues
over the moral and philosophical issues of killing a fetus. It just
seems to me that this argument will never be resolved because
different religions and individuals will always have a different
perspective on this issue. If the government were to pass any laws,
that would be a validation of one religion over another.
Why can't we shift our perspective on the whole issue? Rather than
argue over the moral issues involved with killing a fetus, can't we
focus on what really seems to be the question for our society:
Do any of us have the right to tell a person which choice is the right
one? Or should we all make that choice individually.
I think the pro-life/choice debate has lost its way? We should really
be focusing on the morality of allowing individual choice, or making
one universal choice for everyone. Do we have the right to do that?
Well, if all people except one decide that killing children is OK,
then that one person would still have the right to not participate in
homicides of children.
Robert B. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Has the pro-life/choice debate lost its way? |
22 Jun 2004 12:05:24 AM |
|
|
Robert B. Winn wrote:
kungfool@gmail.com (Kungfool) wrote in message news:<6378023a.0406211452.7e146b8a@posting.google.com>...
An issue that has been bothering me for a long time is the way the
line seems to be drawn down the pro-life/pro-choice dilemma. It seems
that we assume that pro-life = "killing a fetus is wrong" and
pro-choice = "killing a fetus is ok." Then disagreement always ensues
over the moral and philosophical issues of killing a fetus. It just
seems to me that this argument will never be resolved because
different religions and individuals will always have a different
perspective on this issue. If the government were to pass any laws,
that would be a validation of one religion over another.
Why can't we shift our perspective on the whole issue? Rather than
argue over the moral issues involved with killing a fetus, can't we
focus on what really seems to be the question for our society:
Do any of us have the right to tell a person which choice is the right
one? Or should we all make that choice individually.
I think the pro-life/choice debate has lost its way? We should really
be focusing on the morality of allowing individual choice, or making
one universal choice for everyone. Do we have the right to do that?
Well, if all people except one decide that killing children is OK,
Definition
child [Show phonetics]
noun [C] plural children
1 a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a
son or daughter of any age:
then that one person would still have the right to not participate in
homicides of children.
Robert B. Winn
--
--sexkitten--If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come
from morons?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert B. Winn" |
|
| Title: Re: Has the pro-life/choice debate lost its way? |
22 Jun 2004 06:30:10 PM |
|
|
--sexkitten-- <ladyhawk_two_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2jpt17F146npeU4@uni-berlin.de>...
Robert B. Winn wrote:
kungfool@gmail.com (Kungfool) wrote in message news:<6378023a.0406211452.7e146b8a@posting.google.com>...
An issue that has been bothering me for a long time is the way the
line seems to be drawn down the pro-life/pro-choice dilemma. It seems
that we assume that pro-life = "killing a fetus is wrong" and
pro-choice = "killing a fetus is ok." Then disagreement always ensues
over the moral and philosophical issues of killing a fetus. It just
seems to me that this argument will never be resolved because
different religions and individuals will always have a different
perspective on this issue. If the government were to pass any laws,
that would be a validation of one religion over another.
Why can't we shift our perspective on the whole issue? Rather than
argue over the moral issues involved with killing a fetus, can't we
focus on what really seems to be the question for our society:
Do any of us have the right to tell a person which choice is the right
one? Or should we all make that choice individually.
I think the pro-life/choice debate has lost its way? We should really
be focusing on the morality of allowing individual choice, or making
one universal choice for everyone. Do we have the right to do that?
Well, if all people except one decide that killing children is OK,
Definition
child [Show phonetics]
noun [C] plural children
1 a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a
son or daughter of any age:
then that one person would still have the right to not participate in
homicides of children.
Robert B. Winn
child n. 1. an unborn or recently born person
Merriam-Webster dictionary
Robert b. Winn
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Has the pro-life/choice debate lost its way? |
22 Jun 2004 07:01:13 PM |
|
|
Robert B. Winn wrote:
--sexkitten-- <ladyhawk_two_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2jpt17F146npeU4@uni-berlin.de>...
Robert B. Winn wrote:
kungfool@gmail.com (Kungfool) wrote in message news:<6378023a.0406211452.7e146b8a@posting.google.com>...
An issue that has been bothering me for a long time is the way the
line seems to be drawn down the pro-life/pro-choice dilemma. It seems
that we assume that pro-life = "killing a fetus is wrong" and
pro-choice = "killing a fetus is ok." Then disagreement always ensues
over the moral and philosophical issues of killing a fetus. It just
seems to me that this argument will never be resolved because
different religions and individuals will always have a different
perspective on this issue. If the government were to pass any laws,
that would be a validation of one religion over another.
Why can't we shift our perspective on the whole issue? Rather than
argue over the moral issues involved with killing a fetus, can't we
focus on what really seems to be the question for our society:
Do any of us have the right to tell a person which choice is the right
one? Or should we all make that choice individually.
I think the pro-life/choice debate has lost its way? We should really
be focusing on the morality of allowing individual choice, or making
one universal choice for everyone. Do we have the right to do that?
Well, if all people except one decide that killing children is OK,
Definition
child [Show phonetics]
noun [C] plural children
1 a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a
son or daughter of any age:
then that one person would still have the right to not participate in
homicides of children.
Robert B. Winn
child n. 1. an unborn or recently born person
Merriam-Webster dictionary
Robert b. Winn
Definition
child [Show phonetics]
noun [C] plural children
1 a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a
son or daughter of any age:
--
--sexkitten--Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may
be happy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph P. Belk" |
|
| Title: Re: Has the pro-life/choice debate lost its way? |
30 Jun 2004 01:31:56 AM |
|
|
On 21 Jun 2004 15:52:18 -0700, (Kungfool) wrote:
An issue that has been bothering me for a long time is the way the
line seems to be drawn down the pro-life/pro-choice dilemma. It seems
that we assume that pro-life = "killing a fetus is wrong" and
pro-choice = "killing a fetus is ok." Then disagreement always ensues
over the moral and philosophical issues of killing a fetus. It just
seems to me that this argument will never be resolved because
different religions and individuals will always have a different
perspective on this issue. If the government were to pass any laws,
that would be a validation of one religion over another.
Why can't we shift our perspective on the whole issue? Rather than
argue over the moral issues involved with killing a fetus, can't we
focus on what really seems to be the question for our society:
Do any of us have the right to tell a person which choice is the right
one? Or should we all make that choice individually.
I think the pro-life/choice debate has lost its way… We should really
be focusing on the morality of allowing individual choice, or making
one universal choice for everyone. Do we have the right to do that?
It is quite common for a neophyte entering a long-standing debate to
be confused. The arguments bandied back and forth exist within an
historical context which you have not experienced.
The debate over human life ties together a host of issues of which
only some relate directly or indirectly to abortion. Any individual's
view of the overall debate is skewed by that individual's past
involvement and perspective, which in turn was influenced by that
individual's core principles.
You express a desire or preference for focussing on the morality of
allowing individual choice, compared to one universal choice make for
everyone by some authority. Obviously, circumstances dictate whether
it is moral to honor an individual's right to make a particular
choice. or to enforce one view as the only legitimate choice. The
individual and the society are obligated to consider what is being
chosen and how the choice affects all parties involved and the whole
society.
Consider a human being, walking down the street toward you. You might
contemplate your choice whether to greet that individual or not. Free
right of association supports your conclusion that you have an
individual choice which is moral, whether you choose to greet the
person or not. Society would violate your own personal autonomy if law
dictated that you must greet, associate with, or befriend any
particular person, or must not do so.
Now contemplate your choice, whether to assault that individual. The
other person's right to liberty, to be able to walk where one wills
without being assaulted, would be violated by your attack. Do you have
a right to individual choice about whether you assault a strolling
citizen? Society says no, and in this instance we all readily agree
that a just society must make the choice for everyone, that we don't
go down the street assaulting one another.
You may greet or you may refrain from greeting. Law should not
interfere, even though the other person might be impacted either
positively or negatively by your greeting. The proper sphere for
personal autonomy is clear. You may exercise your choice to attack or
not to attack only in the context of law which imposes punishment if
you attack, thus seeking to protect the other person's right to stroll
without being attacked. The sphere for just imposition of a particular
choice by higher authority is clear again, because government and the
law it produces have one first purpose, to secure the rights of all to
the maximum extent compatible with civil order.
With these commonly accepted distinctions in mind, we may examine the
nature of the decision of a mother to kill the child in her womb. Is
this decision moral, or immoral? Does it violate the rights of another
innocent person, and if it does, should that person be protected by
the law? Does the widespread use of abortion carry unacceptable
personal costs imposed on the mothers or unacceptable social costs
imposed on the whole people?
We might ask, regarding the proper role of civil authority, whether
society and its laws should recognize the right of a mother to kill
the child in her womb. One alternative is to recognize the child's
right to live, originating from the child's nature as a living human
being, which was fully established at conception.
An alternate perspective might focus on the actual effect of abortion
on the mother. If a mother's physical, emotional, mental, and
spiritual health will be damaged seriously by abortion, may society
ignore that injury and decline to require the woman to make the safer
and healthier choice? Regarding dangerous drugs, society's actual
response ranges from minimal restriction on the use of alcohol and
tobacco to rigidly enforced bans on the use of heroin, cocaine, and
LSD.
A third perspective might be considered, whether the acceptance of a
woman's right to kill the child in her womb is damaging to the whole
society. If society cannot maintain protection for the lives and other
rights of ordinary citizens and simultaneously support the right to an
abortion, society could justly determine that the abortion decision
belongs to the civil authority. Has acceptance of a right to abortion
enabled men to abuse women by compelling the women to abort? Yes, and
the supporters of a woman's right to abortion oppose laws aimed at
preventing forced abortion. Does recognition of a right to abortion
increase the incidence of infanticide and the murder of older
children? Yes, and the supporters of a right to abortion oppose legal
protection for newborns and for those in the process of birth -
witness opposition in the U. S. to a ban on partial birth abortion and
the opposition to the federal Infants Born Alive Protection Act.Does
the acceptance of abortion undermine parents' rights to protect and
educate their children? Yes, and supporters of abortion rights oppose
the laws which require parents be consulted before abortion is
performed on their children who are minors. So lawless are the
supporters of abortion that some of them have entered into
conspiracies to transport minors, without parental permission, across
state lines to secure abortions, exchanging a jurisdiction where
parental consent is required for a jurisdiction where that requirement
is not yet in place. Where do you stand on these actions by the
proponents of abortion on demand?
Joseph P. Belk
----------------------------------------------------
"No one has the right to choose what is wrong."
-Abraham Lincoln
----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Has the pro-life/choice debate lost its way? |
30 Jun 2004 06:12:46 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:31:56 -0400, Joseph P. Belk <jpbelk@fuse.net>
wrote:
[...]
A third perspective might be considered, whether the acceptance of a
woman's right to kill the child...
No such right exists.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
