quote:

Originally posted by Theresa I believe women should have the right to abortion, but should not have the right to abuse it, and use it as a form of contraception.

..but how can you ever be certain that a woman isn't using it as a form of contraception? self-defense, rape, and incest are the only options that i feel abortion is justified.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue thomson's argument against abortion.. "I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. . . . But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you -- we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this: all persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous. . . "

Awesome response!

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue thomson's argument against abortion.. "I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. . . . But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you -- we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this: all persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous. . . "

bollocks, the violinist is a living, sentient being.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue ..but how can you ever be certain that a woman isn't using it as a form of contraception? self-defense, rape, and incest are the only options that i feel abortion is justified.

Well, as I said previously in the same post, I think it should be regulated, and that upon a third encounter, she would have her tubes tied.

And on the same token, how can you really prove that abortions are or aren't self-defense (which would be the same as rape... wouldn't it?) or incest?

Perhaps I am reading that post wrong, but I am taking that as him being pro-abortion.

heh. a quick thing to ponder before i go to bed...

let's say people aren't born, they grow from seedlings that float through the air.

perhaps one day you leave your windows open. and suddenly a little people seed floats in your house and takes root in the middle of your living room floor. is it morally justifiable to pull the people seed out?

now let's say you put a screen on your windows to block out the people seeds. but somehow, they still get in and take root in the middle of your floor. NOW is it morally justifiable to pull the people seeds out?

one of my close friends gf had an abortion and even as much as he trys to joke about it i can always see the pain and regret in his eyes anyone who does not sympathize with life being taken be it your own or some one elses is truely a sick individual

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa Well, as I said previously in the same post, I think it should be regulated, and that upon a third encounter, she would have her tubes tied. And on the same token, how can you really prove that abortions are or aren't self-defense (which would be the same as rape... wouldn't it?) or incest?

augh theresa i need to go to bed.

self-defense is different than rape/incest. self-defense is the notion that the mother will die unless she has an abortion. then i feel it is morally justifiable to have an abortion.

i think a "three strikes" rule and you're tied is a bad idea. that's three dead babies before they say "nope, that's too many." therefore killing one or two babies is morally acceptable, but 3 is not. i think in that situation it's better not to have a "three strike rule" and just say, "rape, self-defense, or incest." that's it.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa Perhaps I am reading that post wrong, but I am taking that as him being pro-abortion.

No, he's saying that even if you're saddled with a violinist against your will, it would be immoral to be the cause of his death, even if by killing him you free yourself of a burden.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov No, he's saying that even if you're saddled with a violinist against your will, it would be immoral to be the cause of his death, even if by killing him you free yourself of a burden.

yeah. now say the violinist's "poisons" are slowly draining into your body, slowly killing you. then it's ok to pull the plug.

edit: most people argue with this argument by saying "yeah, but i don't give a fuck about a damn violinist." which is obviously not the point. meh.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue yeah. now say the violinist's "poisons" are slowly draining into your body, slowly killing you. then it's ok to pull the plug.

I still think the correlation between living, breathing violinist and foetus is sketchy at best. And as of right now, so does the Supreme Court. Like I said in a previous post, it depends on what stage of the pregnancy you're talking about. If you're talking late term, then yes, it is a feasible analogy. But not if we're talking first trimester or so (the period up to about week 8).

___________________