| Subject: technically? |
Author:
melissa
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 07/30/06 1:10pm
In reply to:
Patrick McGee
's message, "I Ask Again........." on 07/30/06 9:06am
what's technically?
what else is *it*? a piece of meat? a piece of my womb? is that what you mean?
sort of funny in that someone who kills a child, born alive, in like a drunk driving accident, can get off with two years probation but a woman who decides that one more child will send her over the brink and cause her to do serious damage to her entire family cannot, in *good conscious* make the decision to abort the life because someone has interpreted the bible for her to say she will be condemned if she does so.
i think i see your point, however, i think the bible says not to take a life. no life, not a dogs nor an ants and so forth. so is stopping the development of a fetus stopping the potential of life any more then a male masturbating is?
somewhere else in the bible doesn't it say it is better to empty one's seed in a whore rather than empty it into the dust? myself, i think its a metaphor. however, i think many churches use it to shame masturbation and even encouraged armies to have entourages of whores accompany them when touring battles. Also, encouraged rape when pillaging villages. not meaning to bash churches, however, anthropolically speaking it is a fact.
so, when is a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus a human being? now i'm gonna cut and paste cause its sunday and the lord said i shouldn't use too much of my brain on this day cause i'm a woman and i might scare men. haha! besides, this website does a reasonably good job explaining some concepts that i, to a certain extent, agree with.
"Historically, a fetus has never (or very rarely) been considered a human being, at least not before "quickening", an old-fashioned term indicating noticeable movement of the fetus. The Catholic Church even allowed abortion until quickening, up until 18694. Further, the wide variety of laws throughout the world were written specifically to protect born human beings and their property. There is virtually no legal precedent for applying such laws to fetuses5. Even when abortion was illegal, it had a lesser punishment than for murder, and was often just a misdemeanor6. The anti-choice view of fetuses as human beings is therefore a novel and peculiar one, with little historical or legal precedent to back it up.
Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. For example, the state cannot force people to donate organs or blood, even to save someone's life. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will. (In response, anti-choicers say that being pregnant is not the same as being a Good Samaritan, because the woman chose to have sex, voluntarily accepting the risk of pregnancy8. But sex is not a contract for pregnancy—people have a right to non-procreative sex9. Their argument is also sexist and puritanical because it punishes women, not men, for their sexual behaviour.)
Even if a fetus were a human being with a right to life, this right doesn't automatically overrule a woman's right to choose, which can be argued to have a higher moral value under the circumstances. The free exercise of one's moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman (it is not a mere "inconvenience"), her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term."
sorry, patrick, still didn't technically answer your question!
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 