|
So my friend is driving his ex girlfiend up to DC for an abortion. (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by chach
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 |
See, but you are mourning the loss of a POTENTIAL life.
"About 15 percent of all known pregnancies end in miscarriage. About half of all conceptions are also believed to be lost, normally before the mother is aware she is pregnant."
Should we be in constant mourning?
I think your claim of them being "a sick individual" is ridiculous. How can you mourn over potential human cells that were never formed into anything?
SOURCE |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
See, but you are mourning the loss of a POTENTIAL life.
"About 15 percent of all known pregnancies end in miscarriage. About half of all conceptions are also believed to be lost, normally before the mother is aware she is pregnant."
Should we be in constant mourning?
I think your claim of them being "a sick individual" is ridiculous. How can you mourn over potential human cells that were never formed into anything?
SOURCE |
I think the comment you're responding to was mainly directed at the threadstarter who admitted to being "celebratory" over his friend's abortion. It's certainly not murder. But it's also certainly not something to be exuberant about. imho. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_Blue
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. |
So instead you propose that unwanting parents should be forced to raise a child? Or that these children should be born and then thrown into the system? That a woman who wishes not to have a growing entity in her body should be forced to anyway?
And saying that there are "three dead babies" is beyond silly. They were never babies, they were barely functioning cell formations.
I don't think it comes down to what is moral, or what is not moral, because who on this entire planet is on some moral high ground to judge which is which? But I am saying that there is a point where it is obvious that someones stupidity/irresponsibility outweighs their common sense, and at that point, there should be action taken to prevent their stupidity from causing more harm on society as a whole.
Bringing unwanted children into this world who have the potential of being neglected, abused etc. and later becoming dysfunctional adults, is detrimental to all of society, and completely unfair to the individual.
| 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. |
"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. . . ""
I'm reading this as him saying "a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body is outrageous".
Maybe I am over-tired and am interpreting it wrong. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
I'm reading this as him saying "a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body is outrageous".
Maybe I am over-tired and am interpreting it wrong. |
I'm pretty sure you're getting it right. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I'm pretty sure you're getting it right. |
Therefore the whole "story" is actually PRO-abortion... right? |
|
|
| medinaM5 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Therefore the whole "story" is actually PRO-abortion... right? |
prolikebortion? |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Therefore the whole "story" is actually PRO-abortion... right? |
It appears so to me but it really looks like it's missing a concluding paragraph or something so perhaps it's just an excerpt. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
It appears so to me but it really looks like it's missing a concluding paragraph or something so perhaps it's just an excerpt. |
It does look like it's missing something, but from what is there, I think it is safe to assume that it is advocating the right to abortion. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| 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. . . " |
Hun, I think you interpreted that completely wrong.
With a little research, I found this:
In A Defense of Abortion, Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, but defends the permissibility of abortion by appeal to a thought experiment:
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 medical 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. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months] he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]
Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: the right to life, Thomson says, does not entail the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "[I]f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."[5]
For the same reason, Thomson says, abortion does not violate the fetus's right to life but merely deprives the fetus of something—the use of the pregnant woman's body—to which it has no right. Thus, it is not that by terminating her pregnancy a woman violates her moral obligations, but rather that a woman who carries the fetus to term is a 'Good Samaritan' who goes beyond her obligations.[6]
SOURCE
SOURCE
I really like the way this woman illustrates herself. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Glad someone mentioned that the essay was written in support of abortion. I hope that it was posted as an "argument against abortion" out of ignorance rather than dishonesty. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Glad someone mentioned that the essay was written in support of abortion. I hope that it was posted as an "argument against abortion" out of ignorance rather than dishonesty. |
I was wondering if I was losing my mind. I couldn't figure out how in the world it was an argument against it. |
|
|
|
|
