Display:
I'm confused. I thought you said you were against the death penalty?

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (michael<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Sun Aug 26th, 2007 at 07:08:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am. But do not believe we have the right to take any life whether it is something as heinous as what this man did or a defenseless fetus struggling to survive. It is you people who treat the fetus as some sort of inanimate thing that is an inconvenience.
by BJ Lange (langebj@gmail.com) on Sun Aug 26th, 2007 at 07:11:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, your argument is that allowing a woman to make her own medical decisions regarding her own body is morally indistinguishable from raping, killing and torturing a nine-year old girl?

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (michael<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Sun Aug 26th, 2007 at 07:15:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No that is a trumped up distinction you make. My beliefs are very simple and consistent without an caveats. I do not believe that you or I have the right to take a life unless that life is directly threatening your life. A convicted killer does not threaten your life as long as the person is incarcerated. A fetus does not threaten a life (except in rare occasions). In both cases we do not have a right to take that life. Your remark that a woman can do what she wants with her body says exactly what I previously said - that we treat a fetus as an inanimate thing.
by BJ Lange (langebj@gmail.com) on Sun Aug 26th, 2007 at 10:14:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I do not believe that you or I have the right to take a life unless that life is directly threatening your life.

That makes sense, and is indeed consistent. Where we disagree, and I guess this is not something that can easily be argued one way or another, is that a fetus is a life. If you don't mind me asking some further questions to react further to your position, could you tell me:

  • at what point do you think a fetus becomes a life? From intercourse?From the date pregnancy is detected? From a specific date that can by physiologically identified?

  • as you see a moral responsibility in bringing all fetuses to the world, do you also see an associated moral responsibility to ensure that, once born, the kids are properly cared for, housed, fed, educated and loved by both parents, or do you see this as a completely separate issue?


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Aug 26th, 2007 at 10:32:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You previously mentioned that a fetus is not alive until a certain point. If it is not alive then how is it developing. Of course it is alive. Then the next question generally raised is that the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother's womb to sustain that life. Very true. But it is alive, very much the same way Christopher Reeve and most parapalegics are kept alive through life support systems. Should we consider them to be dead as well. Or how about the person who is in coma or some vegetative state. Do we also consider them not alive and turn off their systems.

I can understand if a woman somehow finds herself carrying a fetus and finds it inconvenient to her life for whatever reason and does not want it. I have a fundamental and moral issue with treating that like an inanimate object without finding alternatives. A solution that would satisfy all would be to have the ability to remove an unwanted fetus, place it in some special incubation chamber until full term. Unfortunately that does not yet exist.

by BJ Lange (langebj@gmail.com) on Sun Aug 26th, 2007 at 10:44:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay. If it's that simple, consistent and without caveats, shouldn't women who have abortions then be charged with manslaughter or murder?
What should the punishment be for having an abortion? A fine? A prison sentence? The death penalty perhaps?

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (michael<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Sun Aug 26th, 2007 at 10:41:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course not. That's also an argument used by the right wing. There are laws that allow for executions and for abortions. That does not make either morally right. What I am saying is that the dialogue should not be able the right to have an abortion but how to (1) avoid unwanted pregnancies and (2) better morally deal with those who get an unwanted pregnancy and not make them outcasts (or have medical science find a way to deal directly with unwanted fetuses).
by BJ Lange (langebj@gmail.com) on Sun Aug 26th, 2007 at 10:49:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, you're the one claiming that it was simple and without caveats.
But taking life without the express purpose of self-defense is murder or manslaughter. And you characterized abortion where the woman's life is not in danger as the taking of life without the express purpose of self-defense. And, given that a non-spontaneous  abortion could be considered premeditated, it follows from your own reasoning that one has to consider abortion to be murder. Either that or it isn't as simple and without caveats as you make it out be.

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
by NordicStorm (michael<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Sun Aug 26th, 2007 at 11:53:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As I said there are laws that allow for both executions and abortions. I don't agree with them but there need to be ways to better deal with them.
by BJ Lange (langebj@gmail.com) on Sun Aug 26th, 2007 at 06:44:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series