28 Jun 11, 9:45 PM
shit_sub
UK(W), 5 yrs
 |
spirifer wrote:
Strangely, this thread appears to consist of one woman (me) posting, and a whole load of men pontificating about what women should do. Hmmmm....
|
here's something to add to the female voice on the thread (ironically written by a man)
http://futurismic.com/2010/07/01/new-fiction-you... |
28 Jun 11, 9:53 PM
Doghouse_Reilly
UK(MK), 6 yrs
|
Chauncey_Gardner wrote:
I just struggle to accept the absolute position that you have taken - that the life of the fetus has no value, when compared to the rights of the woman. There must be a line somewhere.
I realise that quite where that line is drawn is extremely contentious, but to me, that is at the heart of this debate...
|
The life of a foetus does have no value. Not objectively. If I was to draw the line at all it would be when the foetus is viable outside of the mother. But that's a moot point because at that point nobody would be looking to get an abortion anyway (at least not in the developed world, just because you're about to be born, or hell even been born, doesn't guarantee safety in some parts of the world for girls).
The thing to consider is human beings are designed to fire out kids like it's cool. The modern family unit of two kids or less, where all that parental affection is directed into a small number of offspring is not the way humans operated for the majority of our history. Typically families would be very large, one or two of the children wouldn't make it out of infancy, the mother might well die in childbirth trying to squeeze out an even dozen, and that'd be that. Because we've moved away from how we used to do things far too much significance is being attached to the unborn. Getting all upset about whether a number of hypothetical unplanned for or otherwise unwanted foetus lives or not is not going to help anybody. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.
|
28 Jun 11, 10:32 PM
spirifer
UK, 6 yrs
|
Chauncey_Gardner wrote:
spirifer wrote:
I'm sorry I called your post idiotic. I think you know me well enough to know that this is something I feel very strongly about, and my fingers sometimes run away on the keyboard.
Sorry.
|
Well, I must confess that I did not know you felt that strongly about the fact that you are may be a binge drinker in denial!
spirifer wrote:
But, I think you are conflating too many issues here. I think I said previously that if it was *proved* that a woman has caused harm to her child, then she should be held accountable for that harm. I'm not a policeperson, or a doctor, or a biologist, so I'm not going to get into a debate with you over causality.
|
And I have said that if it could be *proved* (also, see comments on thalidomide), then the tone of the debate shifts. But in these instances, I don't think it can - which means you have to question the motives of those applying this law.
Also, if we follow your rhetoric through, then a pregnant woman who eats prawns, gets food poisoning, and loses her baby should be prosecuted, shouldn't she? If not, why not?
spirifer wrote:
To me, it seems pretty obvious. Instead of getting het up about what may or may not cause harm pre-birth, simply substitute baby for a child in your womb. If you drive like a maniac with a baby in the car, and that baby suffers harm because of it, you will face a criminal sanction.
|
Sorry to be pedantic, but not necessarily. A driver going at 40 in a thirty area who knocks over and kills a child is unlikely to get a ban, let alone go to prison.
Go figure.
|
I'm not sure what the whole prawn issue is?
As for your statement about driving offences - you are totally wrong. Causing death by dangerous driving carries a possible sentence of up to 14 years in prison.
The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
A denizen of a right little, tight little island.
|
28 Jun 11, 10:33 PM
spirifer
UK, 6 yrs
|
Bloody hell - tl;dr at this time of night - tomorrow, maybe!
The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
A denizen of a right little, tight little island.
|
28 Jun 11, 11:22 PM
Attitude_Adjuster
UK(N), 6 yrs
|
Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
Chauncey_Gardner wrote:
I just struggle to accept the absolute position that you have taken - that the life of the fetus has no value, when compared to the rights of the woman. There must be a line somewhere.
I realise that quite where that line is drawn is extremely contentious, but to me, that is at the heart of this debate...
|
The life of a foetus does have no value. Not objectively. If I was to draw the line at all it would be when the foetus is viable outside of the mother.
|
As technology progresses that point gets earlier and earlier - are you saying that an 'absolute' moral is dependent on the state of current technology? It seems to imply so.
There is no point at which a foetus 'suddenly becomes a human' its a fantasy, consequently absolute morals are out.
Its the efforts to draw lines in the sand that cause the problems. And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!
|
28 Jun 11, 11:40 PM
Doghouse_Reilly
UK(MK), 6 yrs
|
Attitude_Adjuster wrote:
Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
Chauncey_Gardner wrote:
I just struggle to accept the absolute position that you have taken - that the life of the fetus has no value, when compared to the rights of the woman. There must be a line somewhere.
I realise that quite where that line is drawn is extremely contentious, but to me, that is at the heart of this debate...
|
The life of a foetus does have no value. Not objectively. If I was to draw the line at all it would be when the foetus is viable outside of the mother.
|
As technology progresses that point gets earlier and earlier - are you saying that an 'absolute' moral is dependent on the state of current technology? It seems to imply so.
There is no point at which a foetus 'suddenly becomes a human' its a fantasy, consequently absolute morals are out.
Its the efforts to draw lines in the sand that cause the problems.
|
Human or not, once it is not absolutely dependant on the mother for life support sure, why not have it the property of whoever owns the petri dish, glass jar, vat, or whatever you grow these things in. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.
|
29 Jun 11, 12:07 AM
Attitude_Adjuster
UK(N), 6 yrs
|
Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
Attitude_Adjuster wrote:
Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
Chauncey_Gardner wrote:
I just struggle to accept the absolute position that you have taken - that the life of the fetus has no value, when compared to the rights of the woman. There must be a line somewhere.
I realise that quite where that line is drawn is extremely contentious, but to me, that is at the heart of this debate...
|
The life of a foetus does have no value. Not objectively. If I was to draw the line at all it would be when the foetus is viable outside of the mother.
|
As technology progresses that point gets earlier and earlier - are you saying that an 'absolute' moral is dependent on the state of current technology? It seems to imply so.
There is no point at which a foetus 'suddenly becomes a human' its a fantasy, consequently absolute morals are out.
Its the efforts to draw lines in the sand that cause the problems.
|
Human or not, once it is not absolutely dependant on the mother for life support sure, why not have it the property of whoever owns the petri dish, glass jar, vat, or whatever you grow these things in.
|
Good! Now if the doctor in charge of the petri dish, fancies a pint, and can't find another doctor to watch over the lab.... ? And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!
|
29 Jun 11, 1:45 AM
AnEnglishMaster
UK(ME), 5 yrs
|
I find it fascinating that you can make a totally subjective statement (aka your opinion) into a moral absolute. And I also say again that, without an absolute arbiter, there can be no such things as moral absolutes.
(Of course, I believe moral absolutes do exist - because an arbiter does). But I digress.
In certain cultures, they would agree with you, to the extent that THEY would say "the life of a female foetus has no value". And they would abort on that basis.
Presumably you would agree that they are morally right (and absolutely so) to do this?
English "It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon
|
29 Jun 11, 1:56 AM
Doghouse_Reilly
UK(MK), 6 yrs
|
Attitude_Adjuster wrote:
Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
Attitude_Adjuster wrote:
Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
Chauncey_Gardner wrote:
I just struggle to accept the absolute position that you have taken - that the life of the fetus has no value, when compared to the rights of the woman. There must be a line somewhere.
I realise that quite where that line is drawn is extremely contentious, but to me, that is at the heart of this debate...
|
The life of a foetus does have no value. Not objectively. If I was to draw the line at all it would be when the foetus is viable outside of the mother.
|
As technology progresses that point gets earlier and earlier - are you saying that an 'absolute' moral is dependent on the state of current technology? It seems to imply so.
There is no point at which a foetus 'suddenly becomes a human' its a fantasy, consequently absolute morals are out.
Its the efforts to draw lines in the sand that cause the problems.
|
Human or not, once it is not absolutely dependant on the mother for life support sure, why not have it the property of whoever owns the petri dish, glass jar, vat, or whatever you grow these things in.
|
Good! Now if the doctor in charge of the petri dish, fancies a pint, and can't find another doctor to watch over the lab.... ?
|
Then sack him. Whatever. He sucks. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.
|
29 Jun 11, 2:10 AM
Doghouse_Reilly
UK(MK), 6 yrs
|
AnEnglishMaster wrote:
I find it fascinating that you can make a totally subjective statement (aka your opinion) into a moral absolute. And I also say again that, without an absolute arbiter, there can be no such things as moral absolutes.
(Of course, I believe moral absolutes do exist - because an arbiter does). But I digress.
In certain cultures, they would agree with you, to the extent that THEY would say "the life of a female foetus has no value". And they would abort on that basis.
Presumably you would agree that they are morally right (and absolutely so) to do this?
English
|
I never said the lack of value is the moral absolute. The moral absolute is sovereignty over ones own body and the reproductive equipment therein. Of course the value of a foetus is subjective.
You know what? Much as it sucks, yes, women who want to terminate a pregnancy because the foetus is female have every right to do so. And no, having the moral right to do something does not make it morally right. But nobody has the right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Or to abort it. Or do anything she doesn't want to with it.
Not sure how I can make that point much clearer. I do not believe that any state, religion or society has jurisdiction over the reproductive organs of the individual. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.
|
