Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban@SatisHouse.org> wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
Pangur Ban <Pangur-Ban@SatisHouse.org> wrote:
BlackWater wrote:
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote:
"Stanley" <stan_engel@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b32ef0561ca38f8d928378532d879a75@news.teranews.com...
I am anti-abortion/pro-life. As far as partial birth abortion,
I believe they should be banned except when the life of the
mother is threatened, or the child cannot survive after birth.
Hmmm ... what if the life of the mother is in jeapordy but the
child CAN survive and thrive ? Why is the life of the mother
worth MORE than the life of the child ?
Perhaps because the mother already has other children who need
their mother - or do you feel that women are disposable,
replaceable commodities? Perhaps because the mother is already a
functioning and productive member of society whereas an infant will
require care and education for some 12+ years before becoming
functional and productive?
So then ... people with a job of some kind are 'more equal' than
those who do not ? Is it OK then to execute the unemployed or those
without children, just for the hell of it, since they're 'less equal'
and 'less deserving' of life ???
Why not respond to my FIRST question?
Your response to my second question is comparing adults and adults. My
second question was comparing an adult and an infant. Apples and oranges.
Infants are LESS valuable ??? Girl-babies probably
even less valuable yet ...
If an almost-born is indeed a 'person', worthy of citizenship status
and protections, then you can't trade it's life for anothers no
matter HOW 'useful' the other person may be. They're morally &
legally equal. You've just got to do your best to preserve BOTH - and
let events take their course.
This would be the ideal - to preserve both. However, when the choice is
between a mother's life and an "almost-born", then the mother takes
precedence.
I disagree. Save both or lose both - neither is
more deserving, or less deserving.
There are ethical and legal CONSEQUENCES in 'personifying' a pre-born
you know ... your wife/mother/sister might suffer because her
almost-born child is an equal and can't be treated with any less
respect than she herself. Bear that in mind if you walk any sort of
'pro-life' path.
I don't walk the pro-life path. I am totally pro-choice.
Then you probably shouldn't be in THIS sub-thread.
The child is "the future" after all ... plus has never had a
'life' to enjoy like it's mother did.
The "future" is now
No, the future is tomorrow ...
No - the future is NOW. Each second moves us further into the "future".
My future is not 24 hours away but is being shaped by the decisions I
am making from second to second.
But the kids have to LIVE in that future - more of
it than you will. The world and humanity will be in
THEIR charge after you are gone. Do you want to leave
them a "Sucking the brains out of perfectly good babies
is a-OK" kind of legacy to work with ? I hope you're
not anti-war or anything ... that would be a kind of
contrary message ... if brain-sucking is OK then
poorly-targeted napalm raids should be OK too.
- and an adult can direct that future better than an infant. What
makes the life of an infant more important than the life of an
adult ?
Nothing - but, as I said, the opposite is also true.
I have already disagreed with this.
And I've disagreed with your disagreement.
What's next, pistols at high noon - or IS there
a way for us to all just get along (even if
grudgingly) ? America NEEDS a bearable compromise
on this irresolvable issue. It's driving large
camps of people further and further apart. Nobody
will 'win' from that ...
What about the possible other children the mother may have been
able to have?
Those are "potential" children - unrealized, non-existent.
As is the "future" of an infant........it is a "potential" only while
the life of the mother is already being realized and is existent.
Choose the life of an infant over that of a mother and one is choosing
an uncertain over a known.
Hmmm ... so, since your OWN future is mearly 'potential'
it's OK to push you in front of a subway train ???
I'd prefer it if existence gives us SOME claim to
excercise our future 'potential'. Unconceived or
significantly under-developed embryos have little
or nothing in the 'existence' department, much
less a 'human' kind of existence. Different from
grown humans or fetuses so well developed that
you can just pop 'em out and they're ready to go
about being a person.
Planning
to criminalize masturbation and mensturation because they represent
'pre-conception abortion' ? The almost-born definitely EXISTS - here
and now, ready to rumble. Different case entirely.
I also believe that bombing abortion clinics is wrong, and the
perpetrators should be punished.
Agreed.
Good. One evil cannot nullify another. Let the LAW decide what to
do - it's the civilized way. Doesn't mean you have to LIKE the
law, but if you don't you can work to CHANGE the law rather than
running amok and throwing grenades around.
I still feel that the whole pro-life/pro-choice issue is one for
WOMEN only. Until men have babies they should butt out of the
issue.
Men have no stake in their offspring ? An incredibly sexist, narrow,
viewpoint.
Most men sadly TAKE little responsibility for their offspring.
Most ? Or just SOME ? I can't MAKE 'em take however much
interest you think is appropriate, but I'll keep urging
them to do so. They're half of the genetic product there
and potentially half of the socialization/enculturation
equation too.
Very
few take an active role in the rearing of their children - and if a
divorce occurs, the little responsibility they may have displayed
generally disappears. Look at the numbers of women and children who
have to fight in the courts to receive child support - look at the
numbers of children growing with no male role models (which may not be a
"bad thing") because "dad" has moved on to a second or even third "family".
You're looking at a current social phenomena and trying
to derive a general rule applicable to every male for
all of time. Our 'anonymous' society encourages a level
of abstraction about children. Time changes societies,
so todays generalization won't help you much tomorrow.
Yes, I do have a sexist attitude toward this subject - as a retired
teacher I have seen the "responsibility" men take for their children -
virtually NONE. It was the mother with whom I dealt repeatedly when
discussing a child's progress, the mother who came to parent-teacher
meetings, the mother who had the responsibility for the child . Now I
work for a domestic violence center.....which has done NOTHING to
improve my opinion of men's "responsibilities".
What kind of hell-hole were you teaching in ??? You
need to get out more.
I have met some wonderful fathers (a past student of mine is a
marvelous example as he and his wife are raising three absolutely
delightful children but he is one of the few) but they are as scarce as
hen's teeth.
I used to wonder why when abortion of any kind is discussed, it is men
who seem to have the most opinions - and who are the abortion-doctor
killers and abortion-clinic bombers. Now I know the answers. They have
the time and energy to do these things because women are too busy taking
care of their children.
Perhaps they have a somewhat different idea of what
paternity involves than you think they should. At
the 'instinctual' level, men want to make babies -
as many as possible with as many women as possible.
They kinda think of them like money in the bank.
It's sound genetics ... it just doesn't always meld
well with the kinds of societies we've set up. Women
are prone to polygamous behavior too, BTW, also
sound genetics.
Maybe we've got defective social models ... a little
too removed from what people are REALLY like ? As
best I've been informed and able to determine, humans
are "serial monogamists" by nature - stick with one
person until the 'new' wears off or whatever and
then move on. Western society is structured around
a monogamistic model - which is easier and a bit
more stable from the viewpoint of politicians,
business interests and certain religious fanatics.
Apples and oranges ... and there's where the
trouble starts.
Of course, we CAN change our societies far easier
than we can change our inner natures. Might be
worth a shot sometime. DESIGN for serial monogamy,
ENCULTURATE for serial monogamy, and suddenly it's
not a problem.
.
