Text 6089, 200 rader
Skriven 2008-01-23 11:26:00 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Daniel Prather
Ärende: Pro-Choice
==================
 >>  If there is to be a civilized society, there has to be
 >>  limitations on what each can do, and requirements as to what
 >>  each must do.
 >>
 >>  For example, the obligation to defend the society is one
 >>  necessity.

 DP> I wouldn't consider a society to be civilized if your own
 DP> body is not yours to control.

 A society without limitations is not civilized either. Total
 control over your body implies having sex in a public park if
 you so desire. Nice porno-premise, but not what I call
 civilized.

 >>  DP> That's viability, and one of the two options I offered.

 >>  Is it? Is a baby who cannot live outside the womb not a human
 >>  being?

 DP> It may be genetically human.  If it isn't alive, or isn't
 DP> able to survive, it doesn't really matter.

 Yes, it does. A baby who cannot live outside the womb may do
 quite well inside.

 >>   Remember, it's a long time after birth before a baby is
 >>  viable without outside support. IOW, even after birth the baby
 >>  is not "viable" without someone taking care of it.

 >>  The fact that the outside support can come from someone other
 >>  than the mother does not make it any less necesssary. Exactly.
 >>  Now, how does that qualify as a human life, but before
 >>  "viablity" it does not?

 DP> I'm not talking about child rearing.  I'm talking about the

 Yeah, whether you realize it or not, you are.

 DP> point when a baby's own biological systems are able to
 DP> sustain its life.  Obviously a child requires the care of
 DP> some sort of other human being to raise it, and that isn't
 DP> part of the issue of viability.

 Yes, it is. A baby is not independently viable for a long time,
 outside the womb as well as inside. And a baby who is viable
 inside the womb, is viable.

 >>  We regulate medical professionals all the time. And we even say
 >>  there are thingsa a mother must do and cannot do after a baby is
 >>  born.

 DP> I disagree with the legislature ever telling a patient or a
 DP> doctor what they can and can't do.  It isn't their business
 DP> what treatment I'm seeking for my own body.  If anything,

 Isn't it? Some years back a poster in another echo pointed out
 to me that Ritalin or some equivalent was being used by every
 school shooter in recent times.

 You may feel it's OK for an incompetent to practice medicine, I
 have serious doubts about that.

 ...

 DP> Also, sure, there are certain things the child needs that
 DP> the parents are required to provide for them since the
 DP> child is unable of providing them for themselves.  However,

 Bingo!

 DP> none of these things are a matter of the parents' control
 DP> over their own bodies, but merely their obligations under
 DP> the law to their offspring.

 So, the parent cannot take their bodies off to Hawaii and leave
 the kids to fend for themselves?

 >>  DP> However, the anti-womens-rights crowd tends to act like late term
 >>  DP> abortions (especially IDX) are the norm, when in fact, they
 >>  DP> account for a small, small percentage of all abortions
 >>  DP> performed.

 >>  So, are you willing to ban that small percentage? If not, your
 >>  comment above is a red herring.

 DP> No, because it's not my place, nor the place of government,
 DP> to ban any sort of medical procedure just because some find
 DP> it distasteful.

 I find murder distasteful, even that of elderly people who no
 longer contribute to society. Is that a problem for you?

 In any event, if you see no difference between the rightness of
 the government banning late term abortions, then your raising
 the issue is a red herring.

 DP> My point is that the anti-womens-rights
 DP> crowd often uses the most emotionally disturbing case they
 DP> can find, and uses that as the norm for all their

 And the anti-baby's-people often use the most emotionally
 disturbing case they can find, and use that as the norm for all
 their positions. So, don't do that.

 DP> positions.  It's the same thing PETA does with regard to
 DP> animal rights and the treatment of animals raised for food.

 Yummy.

 >>  Warranted? Or convenient? If a viable fetus is a human life,
 >>  then aborting a viable fetus is killing a human being. Somehow
 >>  ascribing infinite rights to one person over another should be
 >>  more than a casual toss off philosophical decision.

 DP> I think at any point in time, the mother can have the fetus
 DP> removed from her body.  She has control over her body, and
 DP> that's that.  If the fetus is viable and lives, it's alive
 DP> and gets rights because it's "born".  If it isn't viable,
 DP> then it doesn't matter because it's not going to be around.

 And if it survives, but is handicapped because it was viable but
 not fully developed, then what? Who gets the burden? Of do they
 complete the abortion?

 DP> The alternative is to require a woman to keep something
 DP> inside her against her will and in violation of her rights.

 The alternative to that is killing a baby.

 >>  If reaching agreement was a requirement to participation in
 >>  discussion Fido would have folded up two weeks after it started.

 DP> True.  But, my point still stands. :)

 >>  Red herring. You have an obligation to help someone in danger,
 >>  but not at the point of getting yourself killed. The "Subway
 >>  Samaritan" who jumped in front of a subway train to save another
 >>  man's life was a hero, but that was not obligatory behavior.

 DP> How is that a red herring?  If a woman wants to carry a
 DP> pregnancy to term, even if it's likely that it will kill
 DP> her in the process, how is that not her choice to make, and

 Red herring! That was *NOT* the question.

 DP> how is that not relevant to the discussion at hand?
 DP> Likewise, if she decides she does NOT want to carry a
 DP> pregnancy to term, how can anyone say she must against her
 DP> will?

 How can you say she has the right to kill a baby?

 >>  And every law I have heard of makes allowances for that, so you
 >>  are raising issues of no significance. Diversionary, I do
 >>  believe.

 DP> Some of the laws do.  Some of them don't.  But, since the
 DP> doctor is the one to decide whether or not it's necessary
 DP> anyway, how is putting it in law any more than a feel-good
 DP> measure?

 Irrelevant. The point here is what should we do, not how do we
 do it.

 >>  Always? Not one single exception? Absolutes should be thought
 >>  out very very well before being proclaimed, and then thought out
 >>  very very well after being proclaimed.

 DP> Always.  An individual always has the right to control
 DP> their own body.  If you'd like to discuss this issue in a
 DP> separate thread and go through any case you can think of,
 DP> be my guest. :)  It could prove interesting.

 I do believe that is what we are discussing.

 >>  If men needed abortions they would be women. Which means women
 >>  would be getting men pregnant, so they would be men. Think about
 >>  it.

 DP> Err, that's not what I meant.  My point is that men still
 DP> have the dominant position in society, and many things in

 I know. I was pointing out the absurdity of your statement.

 DP> society are made based on what men want, even when it's to
 DP> the detriment of women.  This is especially true when
 DP> something pertains to women, but not men, where the issues
 DP> are simply made to take a back seat to the men's issues.

 I doubt the accuracy of that entire line. I do believe it's the
 needs of society that are at issue, not of any individual.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Mall of America...you get can apple pie, a vasectemy, and married by 10 AM.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)