| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/14/2012 01:42:16 AM · #876 |
For those who object to being forced to pay for the birth control of others (either through tax dollars or through healthcare collectives) despite having moral objections to the practice, how do you feel about these two examples of government interference into people's practice of religion.
1) Quakers sent to prison for not paying taxes which will be used to fund wars that violate thier religious code.
2)Children taken from their parent's custody and forced to consent to allow treatment for cancer against the family's religious beliefs. |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 02:02:05 AM · #877 |
Great examples because I can see both sides of the debate. Interestingly, I may come down against the Quaker and for the Christian Scientist even though at an emotional level I feel the exact opposite. But I'd have to ponder it longer.
EDIT: Meh. I've already changed my mind and decided I couldn't support the Christian Scientists.
Message edited by author 2012-03-14 02:09:28. |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 02:05:33 AM · #878 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Without getting into the argument again (you can read it in the posts above), I think the debate is purely about the argument of when a human becomes a person and what reasons one uses to defend that position |
You know the old joke "What is the Jewish stand on abortion? A fetus is not a human being until it has it's PHd."
I agree that there are compelling arguments to be made on the question of when life begins, but that is a complex question and it varies from one society or cultural group to the next. For a society and a legal system there is a secondary and more relevant question. At what point are we so certain that we have the answer to the question of where life begins, that we can make force others in our society to act in accordance with our decision, under threat of imprisonment. I know that I have a private idea of when the potential of human life becomes a human life, but I would not feel so certain in my decision that I would wish others to be forced to follow my logic.
Message edited by author 2012-03-14 02:06:44. |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 02:13:05 AM · #879 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Without getting into the argument again (you can read it in the posts above), I think the debate is purely about the argument of when a human becomes a person and what reasons one uses to defend that position |
You know the old joke "What is the Jewish stand on abortion? A fetus is not a human being until it has it's PHd."
I agree that there are compelling arguments to be made on the question of when life begins, but that is a complex question and it varies from one society or cultural group to the next. For a society and a legal system there is a secondary and more relevant question. At what point are we so certain that we have the answer to the question of where life begins, that we can make force others in our society to act in accordance with our decision, under threat of imprisonment. I know that I have a private idea of when the potential of human life becomes a human life, but I would not feel so certain in my decision that I would wish others to be forced to follow my logic. |
Yet by not making a decision at a societal level you are, in essence, making a decision. What other life-and-death issues could be so left up to individual choice? Are you for letting states, counties, communities decide themselves whether capital punishment should be instituted? (Don't answer that, it's rhetorical and meant only to illustrate another life-and-death issue where there is a difference of opinion but most people don't seem to be so open to other people deciding).
And, just to get the terminology on the same page, substitute the word "person" or "personhood" for "life" in your paragraph. "life" is a scientific term and there is zero doubt that a fetus or embryo is "alive". "person" or "personhood" is a philosophical term and indicates that the being has the rights that go along with being a "person" (ie. the right to live of "human rights").
Message edited by author 2012-03-14 02:14:03. |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 06:10:36 AM · #880 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
The trouble comes, when you are trying to rig MY game. And this is where the some people are fabulously brilliant. Because if you try to STOP them from rigging your game, that somehow means you are rigging theirs. It's like if I block a punch, I'm somehow attacking. Makes no sense. |
This is a beautiful description of the way that certain elements seem to be able to justify imposing their beliefs on others. I've seen this done with so many issues.
Well said....
|
|
|
|
03/14/2012 07:38:29 AM · #881 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yet by not making a decision at a societal level you are, in essence, making a decision. What other life-and-death issues could be so left up to individual choice? Are you for letting states, counties, communities decide themselves whether capital punishment should be instituted? |
The SCOTUS already made a "societal decision" back in 1973. Some people don't like that decision.
Aren't Living Wills and DNR orders precisely "life and death" decisions left up to the individula (and their health care provider)? Don't you have a law where you live allowing a person to decide they want to die?
And States already make the decision whether to institute capital punishment, and we are likely to vote on a(nother) ballot measure on it in California later this year.
Message edited by author 2012-03-14 07:39:52. |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 10:48:56 AM · #882 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yet by not making a decision at a societal level you are, in essence, making a decision. What other life-and-death issues could be so left up to individual choice? Are you for letting states, counties, communities decide themselves whether capital punishment should be instituted? |
The SCOTUS already made a "societal decision" back in 1973. Some people don't like that decision.
Aren't Living Wills and DNR orders precisely "life and death" decisions left up to the individula (and their health care provider)? Don't you have a law where you live allowing a person to decide they want to die?
And States already make the decision whether to institute capital punishment, and we are likely to vote on a(nother) ballot measure on it in California later this year. |
The SCOTUS decision is a legal decision and can be changed just as the personhood status of blacks has changed over time. Roe v. wade itself states that if a fetus is determined to be a person the decision falls apart. At one time blacks were legally not full persons in this country,but I believe that morally they always were. Would you disagree? |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 11:01:23 AM · #883 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The SCOTUS decision is a legal decision and can be changed just as the personhood status of blacks has changed over time. |
Supreme Court reversals move, perhaps exclusively, in the direction of individual liberty rather than imposing restrictions on personal decisions. |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 11:41:04 AM · #884 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The SCOTUS decision is a legal decision and can be changed just as the personhood status of blacks has changed over time. |
Supreme Court reversals move, perhaps exclusively, in the direction of individual liberty rather than imposing restrictions on personal decisions. |
Someone who felt this way would ultimately say it moved it the direction of individual liberty for the weakest members of our society. It's entirely possible that a hundred years from now Roe v. Wade will be placed next to Dred Scott as curious decisions reflective of the times rather than of what was "right". But, like I said, Roe v. Wade itself states the method for its undoing. "[Texas] argues that the fetus is a âperson' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case (or Roe's case) collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed by the 14th Amendment."
So, clearly, the job for those against abortion is to establish that a fetus is morally a person.
Message edited by author 2012-03-14 11:42:40. |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 11:46:25 AM · #885 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"[Texas] argues that the fetus is a âperson' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case (or Roe's case) collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed by the 14th Amendment." |
The Supreme Court has also ruled that corporations are people, so if the 14th amendment applies then all corporations have a right to life and must be protected from bankruptcy at all costs! Viva la McDonald's! |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 11:47:33 AM · #886 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So, clearly, the job for those against abortion is to establish that a fetus is morally a person. |
Wouldn't the job be to establish legally that a fetus is a person?
Originally posted by scalvert:
The Supreme Court has also ruled that corporations are people ... |
I forget who said it, but the quote was "I'll accept that corporations are people when Texas executes one."
Message edited by author 2012-03-14 11:49:05. |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 11:59:40 AM · #887 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So, clearly, the job for those against abortion is to establish that a fetus is morally a person. |
Wouldn't the job be to establish legally that a fetus is a person?
Originally posted by scalvert:
The Supreme Court has also ruled that corporations are people ... |
I forget who said it, but the quote was "I'll accept that corporations are people when Texas executes one." |
Well, to me, that is established AFTER the court has decided it, no? To convince the court you need to make a moral argument. That's the way I see it myself. Let's just say the process could follow that of blacks. If you want to term it that the legal argument was made they were persons and then the court decided so, I'm ok with that. It just seems like semantics. I guess I think that there needs to be a convincing argument as to WHY a fetus is a person. Just arbitrarily deciding it happens at such and such a point, though a possible answer, is unsatisfactory to me.
And I think the "corporations are people" is a really odd decision and would/does lead to many strange outcomes. Does a corporation get to vote? Social security? etc. etc. etc.
Message edited by author 2012-03-14 12:00:47. |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 04:34:36 PM · #888 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And I think the "corporations are people" is a really odd decision and would/does lead to many strange outcomes. Does a corporation get to vote? Social security? etc. etc. etc. |
Considering all the influence that corporations have on society and the elected representatives do they really need the right to vote... the outcome is, in some instances, blatantly obvious.
Are the various churches not deemed to be corporations in the USA...the IRS seems to think so.
Social security you say... You bet and in spades.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 05:18:53 PM · #889 |
| Can a corporation get married? :) Now THAT would be unnatural! |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 09:48:55 PM · #890 |
"The Kansas legislature is considering a bill that would give legal protection to a doctor who discovers that a baby will be born with a devastating condition and deliberately withholds that information from his patient. If the bill passes, a doctor who opposes abortion could decide to lie about the results of a blood test, a ultrasound, a cvs, or an amnio."
On the heels of my last link posted. All the states are jumping on board to put doctor and employer rights over the rights of the woman. Lying to your patients would be ok? Seriously? Don't be a doctor then if you can't handle your job and the decisions that are made because of it.
LAND OF THE FREE WOOHOO!!
Petition |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 10:18:49 PM · #891 |
| In the personhood discussion nobody has offered an alternative to when personhood is granted and why it should be that way. Are there any other options? Can anybody present an argument to back another position? |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 11:27:23 PM · #892 |
I will only comment once...because I notice my friend who keeps checking out this forum rant.......
If the father or mother of one's child didn't want the baby.....one could try to find a way to either......
#1 Figure out how to make a way to care for the baby as a single parent...which is tremendously challenging as any naive minor without a job and a home and finances when denied the opportunities from the relatives or a community - religious or not - whether it be affluent or impoverished - of the fetal being. ..........I don't care what ANY of you say..... romantic and sexual urges overcome a tremendous amount of sense when it comes to the idea of conception when you are young...or older...and willing........and the female becomes the receptacle for the consequences of an involvement.
#2 One may try to find a decent family to have her/him adopted...as a newborn...and that was/is next to impossible when the resources were or are not readily available and/or if one were a confused and a violated woman/girl..........or even willing to help - father.............who didn't want the baby for him/herself......
#3 It is/was close to impossible for an "ignorant" - meaning "not knowing how" - NOT stupid....... female with an unwilling father.....to even deal with or plan for a future. Sometimes young women do not even know they are pregnant until after 3 months because they have irregular periods. Until the fetus is "deemed viable" in participating states.....it can still be "legal" to have the fetus aborted...and females sometimes have to travel to have the opportunity..........if it is not "legal" and if she wants to, she could still find a way to abort that is HORRIFICALLY painful and dangerous....believe you me.
#4. BIGGIE!!!! How many of YOU, against abortion have found a home for an unborn child or adopted a baby in a short period of time.....if at all?????????
#5 The victim is ultimately the child born....if he/she is told many times throughout it's life that he/she was adopted and harassed and treated as a person of insignificance when they did not meet an expectation....................it's bad enough to hear from your birth parents....at any age....that they would have rather had you aborted...........rather than care for you because they have or had "other plans"...... but to figure out why you were not wanted by parents who gave you up for adoption can also be a life long torturous stigma......
#6. Sometimes women do not have the choice.....to abort or keep the baby....which is BARBARIC.
#7. What about victims of rape or incest or other horrific exposures.....should these girls/women be expected to spend their lives raising a child they were forced to have implanted in their wombs?
I have watched a friend read and reread this forum....time and time again.
It is disgusting to me that you all have to do this on a photography site. I already made myself weaker by imparting my opinions. I hate this. And hate all the bullshit ya-de-laws and pretentious "knowledge" of all you hypocritical pseudo-caring f-wads. If you don't care for or better yet adopt and deal with the issues of a baby born from someone else's womb - personally........you have NO room to criticize or to even impart an opinion about ANY woman's right to an abortion.....regardless of your "religion" or "political" stands.........goodnight.
SHUT up. I hate this site anymore and will stop offering my comments unless it's for someone's photographs......... just for the reason that you all think you are so witty and whatever on this very personal - as it should be - issue. Well you are not. Go to another forum on another site. WHOOPS....did I just suggest something you might not want to do????????????????? and don't bother to tell me anything....I won't listen....read or respond. I have other things to do. My 4 minutes is over. |
|
|
|
03/14/2012 11:31:37 PM · #893 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Are there any other options? Can anybody present an argument to back another position? |
Well the two most common opinions in the USA are the one set out in Roe V Wade, and the belief that personhood begins at conception. The latter is clear and simple, the potential child is of primary value, the woman in who's womb the fetus is growing is subordinate to the child. The most extreme in this camp go so far as to say that even if the pregnancy is the result rape, is likely to kill the mother and even if the child is so badly deformed it will die before it is born, the mother should not have the right to terminate the pregnancy. Once a zygote is formed, it is a soul and hence any termination is murder of an innocent soul.
The rather messy hash up compromise that is the Roe V Wade ruling attempts to balance the rights of the potential child with the rights of the mother who does not wish to carry the child to term. It is an awkward attempt to balance the conflicting interests, and come to some balanced answer the we can live with; but it is truly satisfying to no one.
The rights of a pregnant woman who does not wish bring another child into the world is the other actor in the sad little drama that is abortion. Her rights are often overlooked in the debate. At what point in a pregnancy does a woman lose the right to control her body? Some say she loses it the moment she has sex, even if that sex is forced on her.
According to the World Health Organization the legality of abortion has very little effect on the number of abortions performed worldwide. I find that a bit hard to imagine, but in societies where modern birth control is unavailable and abortion is illegal, it seems the procedure moves out of the hospital, and into dank little rooms, C&D in a medical setting is replaced with scraping with a coat hanger by some local woman who can do the job.
Of course illegal abortions are very dangerous, the risk of septic infection is as real as the risk of arrest, but desperate women who do not believe they an afford to have a child will risk whatever they need to risk. The harder it is to get birth control, the more doctors who perform abortions who are shot or imprisoned, the more dangerous it gets for those women, but it seems to them the risk of having the child is worse. It seems we can legislate how safe abortion is, but that is all we can do.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2012 11:56:08 PM · #894 |
Whoa. The value difference between the last two posts is stark, no? Actually I stopped reading the first when it started shrieking.
Thanks Brennan. I agree that Roe v. wade is messy and ugly, but practical. There is no getting around the fact women are uniquely in the position of having another person entirely dependent on them for their life. This is a blessing and a burden and cannot be removed in the foreseeable future. The right to bodily autonomy is very basic and important, but it may be trumped by the right to life. Personally I can't help but add into the equation personal responsibility. The woman is fully in control of whether she gets pregnant (obviously with a few tragic, horrid exceptions). The fetus is in control of nothing. To me, this also tips the balance in the favor of the baby.
I would be open to other messy, ugly points for abortion. Abortion by hormone only. An option. Abortions to 8-10 weeks. I'm marginally more comfortable with that compared to 20 weeks, but it IS an arbitrary point.
The danger of illegal abortions argument, to me, carries very little weight. We may as well legalize heroin, diet pills, and a host of other things.
Anyway, I do want to extend my hand for your thoughtful reply. |
|
|
|
03/15/2012 02:07:12 AM · #895 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The woman is fully in control of whether she gets pregnant (obviously with a few tragic, horrid exceptions). |
My sister runs a battered women's shelter, and you might be surprised at how many women in stable married relationships have no voice over when "marital relations" occur. Of course controlling the possible resulting pregnancy is greatly enhanced if said woman has access to birth control, which does the bring the argument back to where it began.
If her boss makes the moral decision that she should not be on the pill, but she doesn't earn enough to buy it outside her plan, and her husband makes the decision that sex is his right, and the legislature decides that abortion is wrong, she will be cast among the junkies and the whores, a reprobate, outcast from decent society, when she makes the last choice available to her.
It is estimated by the WHO that 68,000 women die each year as a result of the 20,000,000 abortions in countries where the practice is illegal.
Your comparison to heroin is an apt one. Sometimes a hard line in opposition to drugs create more problems than they solve. Our current drug policy has been great for the folks who build prisons and the narco-traffickers. Making birth control and abortion more difficult to obtain will create more problems while being unlikely to solve anything. |
|
|
|
03/15/2012 05:52:19 AM · #896 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can a corporation get married? :) Now THAT would be unnatural! |
Absolutely...but they call it a "Merger" :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
03/15/2012 05:58:24 AM · #897 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Whoa. The value difference between the last two posts is stark, no? Actually I stopped reading the first when it started shrieking.
Thanks Brennan. I agree that Roe v. wade is messy and ugly, but practical. There is no getting around the fact women are uniquely in the position of having another person entirely dependent on them for their life. This is a blessing and a burden and cannot be removed in the foreseeable future. The right to bodily autonomy is very basic and important, but it may be trumped by the right to life. Personally I can't help but add into the equation personal responsibility. The woman is fully in control of whether she gets pregnant (obviously with a few tragic, horrid exceptions). The fetus is in control of nothing. To me, this also tips the balance in the favor of the baby.
I would be open to other messy, ugly points for abortion. Abortion by hormone only. An option. Abortions to 8-10 weeks. I'm marginally more comfortable with that compared to 20 weeks, but it IS an arbitrary point.
The danger of illegal abortions argument, to me, carries very little weight. We may as well legalize heroin, diet pills, and a host of other things.
Anyway, I do want to extend my hand for your thoughtful reply. |
Illegal abortions: see my Korea post.
Making drugs legal:
"Ten years ago, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. One decade after this unprecedented experiment, drug abuse is down by half:"
âThis development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies.â
Forbes Article
|
|
|
|
03/15/2012 06:25:01 AM · #898 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The woman is fully in control of whether she gets pregnant (obviously with a few tragic, horrid exceptions). |
This is the kind of glib, thoughtless response that provokes a "shrieking" diatribe.
Somehow, I think your position and perspective might be more reasoned and sensitive had you been in a situation where you were confronted by a pregnant girl's father, or you had a sister who was pregnant and abandoned.
A woman's life is irrevocably changed by pregnancy, her heart, mind, and body never the same. The sperm donor is pretty much only at the conception.....at that point, his conscience and sense of morality the only things that *might* make a difference.
For instance, if you ascribe to the value system someone like  Nullix adheres to, birth control isn't an option.
As  BrennanOB pointed out, in domestic violence situations, rape is not so uncommon.....not exactly "a few horrid exceptions".
I think you'd be mortified if you really knew how rampant that problem truly is......or you should be as a male with any kind of conscience.
And despite your washing your hands of responsibility for pregnancy, there are two parties involved, yet historically, men get a pass because they don't have to deal with the consequnces later. You want to see some really ugly statistics? Check out the numbers on men who won't pay child support.
The man has as much responsibility for the pregnancy as the woman, yet the aftermath won't support it.
Honestly, so much of this goes back to the fact that considering how much of the consequences of sexual relations is borne by women, men are really presumptuous to think they should have any say in how women deal with these consequences that women have to for the rest of their lives.
Message edited by author 2012-03-15 07:05:39.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2012 06:38:13 AM · #899 |
NM, Double post...
Message edited by author 2012-03-15 06:39:52.
|
|
|
|
03/15/2012 06:59:31 AM · #900 |
I'm trying to figure out why this is such a polarizing issue. Why do some people feels the need to tell others what to do with their own bodies? If its religion based, then that religion ends with you, dont bother me or make me have to live my life under your beliefs system rules, you subscribe to it, you follow it.
So since i'm sure everyone cares, in my opinion, I side with keeping it legal, woman after all have to bear the consequence so why not let them choose if they actually want to bear it.
|
|
