This is so sad... It just speaks volumes in just that picture.
What is societies role in women's sex organs and why does it rate higher than societies role in gun crime? Perfect illustration....
Society has no role in regulating a woman's sex organs. Do you really think a baby in the womb is a sex organ? So you mean all this I hear about Kim Kardashian's "baby bump" is really about Kim Kardashian's "sex organs"? So the media should be saying, "Look at Kardashan's sex organs?" instead of "Look at Kardshian's Baby Bump?"
How do you know that lady is pregnant? I would assume from the picture she isn't.
I do believe the two parties involved in creating a baby should definitely discuss it.
However there are times this is not possible, and none of those should make a woman be looked down upon. Do you realise in some places around the world the laws governing this are so strict a woman died because she wasn't allowed to have a clinically dead baby removed from her body.
You don't have to carry baby ever, you will never have to deal with random strangers feeling it is there right to come up and touch your stomach in the street, you will never experience the strangers bold faced audacity to come up to you and tell you off for "not behaving right whilst pregnant" You will never have that soul-destroying nastiness directed at you when you can't change all your habits whilst pregnant, and the sad fact is a lot of women's critic's are women. However we don't need extra involvement from government, societies misconceptions and feeling of pure justification to do and say whatever they like whilst a woman is pregnant or mothering.
And yes James the media focus' on the "Baby Bump" to take the focus back to the baby (which is still ambiguously somehow related to being the whole of societies child) when they are not involved in that babies life and should god-forbid something terrible happen to that child outside of the home they will not be there.
They will hide and focus on other issues, clouding it and not assist as they felt they had the right to when it was inside her.
Yeah they are sex organs and that baby could still die and be born a still birth at 36 weeks even if that mother lived like mother Theresa and NOBODY is there then. If they are they try to troubleshoot (laying all the blame on the grieving mother - who will be her own worst critic) what went wrong.
Even some of the lesser fringe members of society who saw them when they were pregnant who felt the need to rush up and touch her stomach will be like where is the baby?
Yes, society should have a say... Because they do it so well, don't you think?
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".
It seems to me that in order to fight crime and protect our good old civilian selves, we need guns because either way the nastier members of society have 'em whether we like it or not.Furthermore,the female sex organ does need to be regulated in order to promote overall morality and etiquette .So with all due respect to supporters of this picture-to me its wrong.
"the female sex organ does need to be regulated in order to promote overall morality and etiquette"
Ew. Are you for real? What about the male sex organ? Morality and etiquette don't apply? Not that I personally care about the morality and etiquette of anyone's sex organ, but I don't understand why man-prudes like you want to regulate female sex organs with nary a concern about the purity of your own tiny appendages.
Aaron Seitler, I hope you will agree then that the Male-Sex Organs need to be regulated as well, with the first port of call being vasectomy's until they want to have a child. Whilst this is the most effective birth control method, lest likely to create hormone imbalances and are reversible.
Equality for all hey?
I don't see how regulating one side of the population but not the other "promotes" morality and etiquette". For that fact women are supposed to act in a manner "man approved" however cater to their other whims and needs such as making sandwiches and even make women make sandwiches when they don't want to and physically can't... there is a problem here....
I think all sides of society need to show some morality and etiquette... and it is not just related to sex and the organs which propagate this.
Well, the fact of the matter is, a woman's role is caring for her husband.I'm not a chauvinistic pig,please don't think I am, but that's the way it has always been and this system of a woman maintaining the home and the man earning a living, by G-d it works.It always has worked.Yes,this new fad of woman getting well-paid jobs etc. which has been becoming more popular for the best part of the last century CAN work but is problematic.
And as I'm a religious person,I promise you that religion states that a woman is more frivolous when it comes to this kind of topic.Therefore it makes sense that the part played by the woman needs to be regulated but less so the man
There you have it, folks.
And some of you said the graphic was not an accurate representation. Don't you feel silly? ROFL
This new "fad"...Wow! Women are "frivolous"...we deserve lees rights and to be regulated? Is this still America?
A "woman's" role to serve her husband... So what about the un-married woman... and even if it is her "duty" to serve her husband its regulated by the government because...?
Firstly, Melissa Barett as I'm 13 years old,it would be fair and just to say that marriage for myself at this moment in time is socially improper.And Miss Barnette,I never mentioned rights-certainly regarding judicial matters, woman must certainly attain equal rights to that of a man.And what of the unmarried woman? 'tis a problem, i would certainly say that her sense of purpose is weakened.And thank G-d we live in a democratic country with a government that listens to its people.Surely we should keep our side of the bargain and in cases like this listen to them?
It's not about controlling the woman. Never really has been. It's about protecting (at least in the pro-life person's mind) the life of the growing human.
Any talk about controlling women is a straw man and detracts from a real discussion.
I'm going to enter into this discussion with you because while I feel strongly about this topic it doesn't affect me personally.
There are two sides to every issue Jaxson and saying that the fundamental argument of on side is a straw man isn't exactly fair or accurate.
It is NOT a straw man to say that the government should stay out of my uterus. Even if it's purpose is noble it is still making a decision for me that it has no right to make. It's not a diversion, it is the essence of why women are pro-choice.
If you wanted to get a vasectomy and the government told you that you couldn't because of the religious beliefs of another group, how would you feel?
If the mother doesn't see it as a baby and science doesn't see it as a baby then it is up to the woman to deal with the morality of the situation. Not Government and not anti-abortionists. You can't expect someone to agree with a religious definition that they don't believe simply because you do.
It is fair to call it a straw man, because pro-abortion people tend to misrepresent the position of pro-life people. If you say that someone is trying to regulate your uterus, that's not true. They're trying to protect a life. If you want to argue against someone's position, you have to argue their actual position.
As far as definitions, well those change all the time. It's society's job to decide on the definitions it will use. We have changed our definitions of 'human' and 'life' in the past. We should try to make those choices based on reason.
If the government said I couldn't have a vasectomy, then I wouldn't have one. I would try to get that changed, or move to a different country, if it were important enough for me.
But, logically, comparing an abortion to a vasectomy doesn't fully work. In one instance, you have cells which are genetically part of the person, and we don't believe in regulating cells. In the other case, the cells are demonstrably not part of the person, but genetically unique to another human(from the genetic viewpoint, it doesn't matter what stage of development a person is in, their genes are their genes).
So, my argument comes down to the fact that all humans have the right to life. If you look at a person, and trace back their history, there is only one single point in time when you can scientifically say that they began to exist, and that is when the egg is fertilized. At that moment, the DNA of a unique, distinct human being comes into play. From then on, that entity is neither part of the mother or the father.
That's not precisely correct either.
Intent really has nothing to do with the end effect. Yes Pro-lifers really are trying to regulate the reproductive systems of woman. Like I said they may have the most noble of intentions but the RESULT is the same. They are attempting to tell women what they can do with their own bodies.
And while definitions can change all the time, this one hasn't.
It is completely reasonable to treat an embryo as an embryo. The emotional thing is to treat it like a baby. The rational thing to do is look at it for what it is... a parasite that can't exist outside it's host's body. That parasite will have significant effects on the health of the host. That reason alone should dictate whether the host has the option to remove it or not.
Logically you are right. The more logical comparison would be a man having a tapeworm inside his scrotum and PETA stopping him from having it removed because it violated the tapeworm's right to live.
The argument that all humans have the right to live is also emotional. No such right exists. But that is immaterial as an embryo isn't legally a person anyway. Therefore it has no rights.
So there in a nutshell is your logical argument.
See my other post. When you argue against a valid conclusion because of what the conclusion is, it's a straw man. If you have a problem with the way the conclusion is inferred, then argue against that. If you have a problem with a premises, then argue against that.
What you are saying is akin to saying that murder laws are an attempt to regulate how people swing their arms. The result is that we will punish people for swinging their arm in the wrong way/time/place, but that's clearly not the intent, or purpose, of murder laws at all. The intent is to protect life. If it helps, it's kind of like attacking a symptom rather than the actual cause. More than one cause will have the same symptoms, but the symptom isn't the problem, and we'll get nowhere just treating the symptom.
The reasonable thing is to treat it like a human. At its core, that's what it is, a unique, distinct human being. That DNA can produce no other result. If you try to start arguing development, then it's 100% arbitrary. The only objective moment to say that a human life started is to go back until that human didn't exist. We have different names for humans in different stages of development... senior, adult, teen, adolescent, child, toddler, baby, infant... but we recognize that every human has the right to life, regardless of how well they can fend for themselves or how developed they are.
As for the parasitic argument, there are a couple of problems with that. You can't argue based on dependence, because even a newborn is dependent for life, but we don't say that it's ok to kill a newborn. You can't really even argue harm, because an infant causes psychological and physical problems for its parents, due to stress and lack of sleep. We still don't say its ok to kill it.
Say we had artificial wombs, and the 'parasite' could exist outside the host's body. Would that make abortion no longer valid?
Comparing a fetus to a tapeworm doesn't work. A tapeworm isn't human, and our society gives different rights to humans.
That all humans have a right to life is one of the pillars of the framework of our moral and legal code. When you accept a foundation, you have to apply it equally, or it's not a foundation.
See, it isn't about the conclusion at all. It's always about the premises, and the method of inference from the premises.
Just curious, if no human has the right to live, then I would guess you support the death penalty and are against regulating guns, correct?
I cannot believe you are crass enough to equate a living human baby with a tapeworm. Do you know that you were once in your mother's womb? Were you ever a tapeworm?
Unless it is diseased a zygote will live to be an old person, like you. A zygote is human, there is no question about that. It is a human zygote, not a pig zygote or dog zygote. So, uninterupted, it will live from conception to old age. And it is human all the way from beginning to end. It is alive. An abortion kills it, yes? It kills what is alive, no?
Even if you believe a zygote is a person, it is a person that is using another person's body to grow and survive. Does not the person who is already born and living having the right to decide whether another person (if you believe that is what a zygote is) can use their body for nine months, or until it is viable outside the woman's body?
A woman should have the right to decide whether or not to host a zygote. If you don't believe a woman should have that choice, then why can't we force compatible organ donors to provide organs to prevent another human being's death? By saying the woman MUST subsume her own wishes to that of a zygote, you are saying that the zygote's life trumps the woman's own freedom. If you believe that, then you should also believe that a person who needs a kidney to survive should be able to force another human being to give them one. Their right to life is just as important as a zygote's right to life, isn't it?
Affirmative action that kills life versus omission of an action that could save a life.
Also, comparing action against a distinct human entity vs action relating to your own parts.
PP, are you OK with terminating a healthy pregnancy at 35 weeks?
"Affirmative action that kills life versus omission of an action that could save a life." That is if you believe life begins at conception. Not everyone does, and it is wrong for those who do to force others to conform to their beliefs.
"Also, comparing action against a distinct human entity vs action relating to your own parts." I don't know what you mean by this.
At 35 weeks, a fetus can live outside the womb so I would be opposed to killing it.
No, it scientifically kills life. Life and 'a life' are two separate things.
I mean, you can take actions upon your own body, and the government can address actions to your own body. In all cases, action against something that isn't your body is treated separately. A fetus is not part of a woman's body.
If we could incubate a fetus at 10 weeks, then you would oppose abortions after 10 weeks?
At 35 weeks, you're still telling the mother what she can and can't do with her body. You're still telling her whether or not she has the right to kill all parasitic life cells inside her.
Okay, let's amend that to killing a "person."
A fetus requires a woman's body to survive for around 24 weeks.
At 35 weeks, we are telling a woman she cannot kill a life that could be sustained without her. That is all.
If we could incubate a fetus at 10 weeks, then we can probably incubate one from conception and that is an entirely different ethical question that goes outside the scope of this conversation.
I'm not going to get into a million different hypotheticals with you, Jaxson. I don't have time.
I'm just trying to see if your reasoning would be consistently applied. Personally, I don't think that external factors, such as technology, determine whether or not a fetus is a human being. I think it is innate.
As I said in another post, I can't imagine thinking that a 19-week old fetus isn't a person, then the doctor walks in and says 'We figured out how to incubate 19-week old fetuses!', and suddenly the exact same fetus is now a person. If you base it off viability, then you would have to say that the fetus, with no internal change, no change to its characteristics, instantly went from not being a person to being a person.
Hypotheticals are very useful if you're interested in challenging your beliefs. Would you say that fetus instantly changed from not a person to a person?
You are not understanding my original point. Even if one considers a fetus a person from conception, there is no obligation for a woman to subsume her own needs for another person. She is under no obligation to act as host to another being so it can live. Now, I don't consider a zygote a person, but even if I did, I do not believe in forcing a woman to host another being against her will.
"As I said in another post, I can't imagine thinking that a 19-week old fetus isn't a person, then the doctor walks in and says 'We figured out how to incubate 19-week old fetuses!', and suddenly the exact same fetus is now a person. If you base it off viability, then you would have to say that the fetus, with no internal change, no change to its characteristics, instantly went from not being a person to being a person."
No, that is not what I'm saying at all. I do not think viability suddenly makes a fetus a person. I think it makes a fetus capable of living without sponging off of another person's body. That is all. Once a fetus is viable on its own, then having an abortion is not necessary to keep it from infringing on a woman's freedom.
She caused that life to come about, therefore an argument can be made that she is responsible for its well-being. Assuming the fetus is a person, you are completely throwing out its right to life.
Right to life trumps 'right to not be leeched off of by a person you created'.
Methinks Jaxson is resorting to an emotional argument. I do not believe a fetus has a "right to life." It is okay with me if you believe that, but it is not okay with me if you force others to give up their freedom for your beliefs.
How about this for a hypothetical (even though I really hate them for the most part)? You have stated "She caused that life to come about, therefore an argument can be made that she is responsible for its well-being." If you believe that, then you would also believe that the man involved in causing that life to come about would be equally responsible for its well-being. Suppose the technology exists for men to carry a fetus to term and give birth. Shall we force them to do so at least half of the time? If a couple has two children, shall we force the male to carry one of them to term, even if he does not want to? If a couple becomes pregnant even when they do not want the baby, shall we force the responsible male to carry that baby to term at least half of the time?
Not an emotional argument. It's the basis of our entire societal framework, the right to life of every person. I said 'Assuming the fetus is a person' it has the right to life. Do you disagree that all people have the right to life?
If males could carry that baby, then sure, they could share the responsibility.
Sure, I believe in the right to life, but as I have already stated, I don't believe the right to life includes the right to use another person's body to sustain a life.
Who caused the situation to happen? The fetus, or the parents?
If you cause something to happen, you are responsible for it. The effect isn't responsible for itself. If you make a human being that is dependent on you, none of your rights can possibly trump its right to life, because that is the paramount right.
"If you cause something to happen, you are responsible for it. The effect isn't responsible for itself. If you make a human being that is dependent on you, none of your rights can possibly trump its right to life, because that is the paramount right."
So, you oppose exceptions for rape and incest? Because the effect isn't responsible for itself in those cases, either.
I disagree with you that none of the rights of a person who is already born can trump a right to a fetus' life. That is your belief, but it is not mine.
A woman absolutely has the right to chose to host a zygote or not, unless she is raped. If she has intercourse she is choosing to host a zygote, whether she gets pregnant or not. That is the natural result of intercourse. That is nature's purpose of intercourse. That is the result when intercourse works properly and succeeds.
Sorry, but I also have intercourse just for pleasure, don't you? When I have intercourse I am not choosing to host a zygote, since I have taken precautions not to become pregnant. If, despite those precautions, I were to become pregnant, I am under no obligation to give up my body and my freedom for a zygote, fetus, or another person.
You compare a vascetomy to killing a living baby? A baby in the womb is not a kidney; it is not part of a woman's body; it is IN a woman's body. Even your science-god says so.
A more apt analogy would be, if you wanted kill your 3 day old baby, should the government have any say in it? Should the father of the baby have any say? Or just you decide the morality of killing it because you gave birth to it?
You can't expect someone to agree with an atheistic view of the world just because you do.
But your big mistake is in saying "if the woman and science don't see it as a baby." Women do see it as a baby, and everybody knows it, though some try to deny it in public. Believe me, nobody ever says "See my fetus bump!" or "The fetus kicked" or "I am with fetus!"
Science sees the baby as a separate entity. Every medical manual ever printed calls the baby a separate patient from the mother.
Right to sexual privacy is one thing, but murder is something entirely different. Abortion is murder. That's not religion, that's fact.
If we say some kinds of murder are okay, then other kinds might be close behind. Take Obama's Kill List which includes Americans. No trial, no recourse. Bang! You're dead by presidential decree. Obama even got caught saying that gitmo prisoners should stay there forever, even if found not guilty. Whoa! Truth, justice and the American way?
Attaching religion to the abortion question is a pretty "cool" way to make the topic entirely divisive. Keep the peanut gallery squabbling while the country (Constitution) is dismantled.
A human fertilized egg is a human being. Intentionally ending its life is premeditated murder.
If you say so, but until you can prove it to me it's your opinion.
And opinions are like buttholes. We all have one.
Has your wife or significant female other (if you've had one) ever used oral contraceptives?
I'm with Melissa. Just because you believe a fertilized egg is a human being does not make it so.
Think of it this way. Pro-life people are saying the following:
Premise 1 - All humans have the right to life.
Premise 2 - Zygotes and fetuses are humans.
Conclusion - Zygotes and fetuses have the right to life.
Nobody really has a problem with the conclusion, because the conclusion is 100% logically valid. The only disagreement that can exist would be with one or both of the premises.
Saying that pro-lifers want to control women is arguing against the conclusion, which is where the straw man comes in.
Persons have a right to life. Maybe. I'm not sure where that right you speak of comes from.
Zygotes and Fetuses aren't people.
In the USA, it comes as the basis of our legal and moral framework, and is found in our founding documents.
This is exactly my point though. It's not the conclusion. You have a problem with the second premise. That's why arguing about 'controlling the woman' is fruitless... that's not what the disagreement is about.
What makes a human different from any other living creature? Genetics... our DNA. If you had the DNA of a frog, you would be a frog. If you had the DNA of a turtle, you would be a turtle. DNA is the building block which defines what an entity is.
Now, I am a human. My DNA is human DNA, separate from anyone else's. If you trace my timeline back, I had this DNA all the way back to fertilization. So, genetically, I have been me ever since fertilization.
Ok...read the constitution and tell me where the right to life is.
Your arguments are all emotional Jaxson.
Find me scientific proof that a zygote is a human being.
Warts contain human DNA as well.
And a newborn relies on parents for care. Not for life. Generally their heart beats and they breathe all on their own.
First, I said founding documents, which includes the Declaration of Independence. You don't honestly think that the right to life isn't one of the pillars of our entire country, do you?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Science doesn't define terms in that way. Science provides information, we often use it to define terms in our societal or legal system. I can provide proof that a zygote is life(it is neither dead nor inorganic, so it is life). I can provide proof that a zygote is genetically distinct from both parents, so it is not a part of either parent. I can provide proof that a zygote is genetically human. So, I can prove that a zygote is a living human cell, genetically distinct from its parents, and is simply another step to full human development, as is every other stage to full human development. The only difference between a zygote and a newborn is degrees of development.
Warts are demonstrably a part of a human being. If a woman developed a wart in her uterus that had unique DNA, I would have no problem with her having it removed. Far different from a zygote.
So that's a no on the scientific proof?
And I'm sure the English are very impressed by our stance on abortion... Since we stated it while succeeding from them.
And zygotes/fetus/embryos aren't persons. That is very clear in terms of the law. So your amendment doesn't apply.
Still making emotional arguments Jaxson. Do try to be reasonable.
You are asking for scientific proof for a definition. Like I said, that's not how science works.
You asked where the right to life is in our Constitution, I showed you. Why are you trying to be clever?
We aren't talking about legal definitions. Nobody is disputing what the law is, we are talking about what we think should be.
Melissa, you didn't actually address a single argument I made. I'm disappointed. Especially after you take the time to talk about how I'm not interested in discussion. That's all I'm interested in! But, when I specifically address the things you say, and then you just dismiss everything I say, that's not real discussion.
Call my arguments emotional if you want, but they aren't. If you need the clarification, I can present them in syllogistic form to prove it. You do know that syllogisms are logical arguments, not emotional, don't you?
You set the tone Jaxson. You wanted logical arguments. Your logic is flawed on the basis of premise. Therefore your conclusion are inherently flawed. As are many of the syllogisms you use.
You have yet to prove to me that a fetus has a right to life.
You have yet to prove to me that a fetus is a human being.
Since both premises of your syllogism are flawed then the conclusion is also inherently faulty.
But please fire away. I would love to watch you attempt logic based on emotional assumptions.
Or you could just admit that you think abortion is wrong because you feel emotionally that it is.
Saying that an argument is flawed isn't a logical counter to the argument Melissa. You know that. All you are doing is saying that my arguments are wrong. So why don't you participate in the discussion and back up your claims? Address my arguments.
I presented arguments for why all humans have a right to life. Since you haven't countered it, it's the best we have so far in this discussion.
I presented arguments for why a fetus is a human. Since you haven't countered it, it's the best we have so far in this discussion.
I don't know why you're being this way, but it's getting to the point of being rude.
Warts? Do warts have a father as humans do? If you got pregnant with my child, why on earth would you think it is none of my business? My offspring, my heirs, my baby, is none of my business? Because God, or to you nature, chose to place the unborn child in its mother's womb, that we all live our first 9 months inside our mothers, for . . . for what? For PROTECTION.
We are entrusted to their care. Because God, or nature to you, figured that if anybody would do anything to protect their babies, it would be their mothers.
Firstly let me say I respect peoples differences of opinion on abortion. I am not here to change anyone's mind. There are many examples of issues in a modern society which cause ethical debate among the population. Some things are simply not black and white. To some people they are. To many others they are not and even when they are few people will be on the same side of the fence. So clearly issues such as abortion when considering the views of the population collectively are grey.
Now when considering the matter as to whether or not abortion is immoral or ethically justifiable, the general sticking point seems to be about what is human life? There is no current universally agreed upon answer among the general population. To some a zygote is not a human life but a precursor to human life. They argue it is a bunch of cells and cannot be human life because it does not have a consciousness. Others claim like Jaxson above that zygotes and fetuses are humans because they are essentially composed of human genetic and cellular material and have the potential to develop into a person. Others go further than Jaxson such as the Church and say that sperm and egg have an invaluable human quality to them. Until society comes up with a consensus that we can all agree on, on what human life actually is, then this debate will continue. For many it goes beyond simple biology. Many people frame human life principally in terms of human consciousness. I don't think there is an easy answer to these questions and I think we need to refrain from judging others on these complex matters until we are all at the same level of understanding and mutual appreciation of the relevant information.
Good post, it's very true.
That's why we should focus the discussion on the definition of human life, rather than misrepresentations.
I like to play the backwards game. Start at an infant, ask yourself if it's a human or not. Then, go back in time until you no longer think it's a human. Then, state the reason why. What changed from day X to day X+1 that made it a human? Once you know the reasoning behind the decision, you have to examine it.
Perhaps you say viability is what makes someone human. Right now, that's somewhere around 21 weeks. Well, the question is, does one have to be viable long-term to be a human? Is a cancer patient on its death-bed still human or not? What if technology changes? Say there is a 19-week old fetus today, and you consider it to not be human because it isn't viable. Then the doctor walks in and says 'We figured out how to incubate babies back to 18 weeks!' Did the baby just become a human?
I try to ask people these questions, and engage in that level of discussion, but often people take offense when their reasoning is questioned.
Just to get back to initial point of this blog (or how I initially saw it). I completely agree and sympathise with the authors frustration regarding government priorities. We have a western society that is maybe 10 or so years away from economic collapse or at least pronounced long term decline, which when it begins (it may have already) will take decades to reverse. You would think that the governments of countries such as the United States, Australia, the UK and the Eurozone would be spending a little more time addressing the economic problems that threaten to undermine the quality of life of it's citizens. Things like mass shootings are related to mental illness and mental illness is related to socioeconomic conditions. In other words solving the big problems helps solve the small ones. Do we see this? No. Instead we see governments blowing up issues like abortion, boat people and gay marriage to distract the population and the media from scrutinising the governments performance against key economic issues (and other major issues like climate change) that underpin everything we do. I am tired of the spin, I am tired of the deflection, I am tired of the blame game and I am tired of the dirty under the table politics. The politicians of today are poor substitutes for the great leaders we have had in the past (Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Menzies and so forth).
I agree that there are all sorts of problems facing America. Economics is a big one. However I am not willing to ignore the rights of a woman to choose what goes on with her body and the right of two people in love to marry.
What good does being financially secure do if people are being oppressed? I'd rather be poor and free than rich and dictated.
The economic state of a country underpins the freedoms of it's citizens, especially women. This is why women and people in general have far more liberties in richer OECD countries than in poor countries like Sudan etc.
I'm not sure whether that is due to economics or religious/cultural influences.
I would assume that both are somewhat connected as wealth leads to education which lessens religious/cultural influence.
I'm not quite sure we've reached the point where the economy has caused lack of education. But I'm sure that will likely come. We just never developed to a point where religion took a backseat enough for woman to receive truly equal rights. I'm not sure all the money in the world would fix that with such a strong religious presence.
Melissa-Some people won't like me for saying this but I think the writing is on the wall. The wealthier the country, the better the opportunities it's citizens will have for education. The better educated and richer citizens are, the less influence religious and backward zealots have over the population. Hence there is less likely to be people going around shooting women or couples for instigating an abortion. This relationship is one of the reasons why I firmly believe the best weapon against terrorism, bigotry and oppression is economic prosperity and more specifically education. Educated people are less likely to be brainwashed and are more likely to think for themselves and be open and tolerant of differing beliefs and customs. Look at the American South and the basketcases there! Some areas of the US already represent the third world.
"I'm not quite sure we've reached the point where the economy has caused lack of education."
Yes we ARE! Which is one of the reasons China and Asia will be running things in the coming decades.
See that I could argue forever.
Technically each student in America gets about 20k spent on their education each year. The average home educated student gets around 600 spent each year.
Yet home educated students tend to excel in almost every area vs. publicly educated children. The problem isn't lack of funds, it's lack of efficiency.
I can assure both of you that the root of this issue is not logic. This comes down individual morality and how we define the value of life. This is an ideological conflict. There are no right or wrong answers, beyond what we arbitrarily set for ourselves.
There are always going to be some arbitrary aspects to any framework. The key is, once you agree to a framework, you need to be consistent with it, or change it so you can be consistent.
Logic works perfectly for that. If society agrees that the arbitrary ideal of 'X' is correct, then 'X' becomes axiomatic, and a foundation for any following arguments.
Logic might well be perfect for that.
You have yet to use logic... but I agree that it would be perfect.
You are using a syllogism structure. Well I can use the shape of any frame I like to build my house. If I make the frame out of peanut butter it isn't going to hold up.
So, you're not going to actually show me the respect of addressing what I say? Just going to keep dismissing it and saying I'm wrong?
Seriously Melissa, it's not only rude, but hypocritical considering your criticism of me in the other thread. I'm sorry to see you hold me so low in regard that I"m not even worthy of more than a dismissive response.
I did present logical arguments. I really don't see the need to form everything into syllogisms, but if I do(they already are, just not formally written that way), then you either have to argue against the premise, or the inference. I'm not going to do that though, if you're just going to keep dismissing what I have said.
I know that
And I personally believe that an embryo is a baby. However I admit that is a purely emotional belief. As such it is MY belief and not to be imposed on others.
As long as someone keeps trying to prove logic to support their opinions (which are emotional) then they will never reach the point of acknowledging that their beliefs should not dictate the actions of others.
Melissa and Jaxson-The health of an economy goes beyond the money available to throw at things. The economy also has to be structured and managed properly. I am pleased to see you both later touch on that, but don't mistake the health of the economy with the availability of funds. It goes beyond that, which is why many economists will look at multiple measures when assessing the economic environment.
I guess I might as well put my two cents in on abortion. I will eventually have to discuss it at some stage or another in my Hubs. Before I begin, a short disclaimer, I don't claim to be more right than anyone. What we need is intelligent reasoned debate on the subject without the finger-pointing and the pitchforks. In my opinion the one quality that makes us all have an infinite value is our human consciousness. Without that humans cease to be people and become mere bodies of flesh.
Do we value people for their bodies or their unique mind and personality? Which describes the essence of who we are? A zygote or a fetus that has not yet developed even a rudimentary consciousness, cannot really be said to be a human life in the sense that we prescribe to people. Unlike those in a coma or a state of sleep where consciousness is merely temporarily suspended, consciousness has not even formed in these bunch of cells or tissue. When someone is permanently brain dead and their consciousness is never coming back, then we pull the plug. It becomes very clear when discussing these things what really makes human life so precious.
Whether or not abortion is immoral to me depends on whether a consciousness has come into existence. If it has then a person has come into existence, no matter how rudimentary their consciousness may be. If that person could talk would they want to be aborted? No. Would they experience the abortion? Yes. The extent to which is irrelevant, the fact is they would be experiencing in some way their own death and that in my opinion is cruel regardless of the extent to which they experience it. Would I pull the plug on a coma patient? Not if that person had a chance of coming back into being. That is the difference between coma and death. The difference between a coma patient and a zygote, is the coma patient has merely had their consciousness suspended, not eradicated, whereas a zygote never had a consciousness in the first place.
None of these questions are easy. I am pro-abortion, however once a nervous system capable of eliciting the first sparks of consciousness comes into being and starts functioning, I would consider any attempt to abort such a person murder (or manslaughter if it were unintentional). A person for me is a mind, not a body. A mind does not come into being at the embryonic stage and other early stages of gestation. Therefore there is no-one in my mind that will suffer because they don't exist and never have existed. Do I feel sorry for sperm and ova that could potentially turn into human beings? No. A zygote could also potentially turn into a person, but just like the sperm or egg, just because they could potentially turn into a person does not make them a person or give them the rights of a person.
Again I refrain from judging others on abortion. It is a grey area and I don't claim to be more right than anyone else. Some religious people may claim a soul exists at the embryonic stage (I am agnostic). Without proof I cannot support that claim. I am not saying they are wrong, but who is to say they are right? I base the decisions in my life on facts and that has worked very well for me so far. Aside from that I regard the mind and the soul if it exists, as one and the same. The mind i.e consciousness does not form in a zygote, therefore in my opinion neither does the soul if it even exists at all (Who really knows? No one. Then what makes people think they have a basis to judge others on such things? Because they regard their beliefs as fact and in my opinion this is delusional. Of course I know many religious people that are not that way at all! Sincerely!).
My thoughts exactly James. At a certain point a mind is formed in that womb. With the formation of consciousness, another person comes into existence. That baby in the womb has become a person and at that exact moment I believe you are dealing with a human life. Before that moment abortion in my opinion is an ethically justifiable choice and after that moment it is murder. Again I must emphasise that this is a grey issue, not black and white. I don't claim to know better than anyone else. It is just my opinion.
I freely acknowledge and accept that at one stage in my biological development, my body did not have a mind and it was not yet a person as I define it. I would not even describe that state as me per se, since my mind or me was not around. Rather it was the precursor to me. Yes my body had a moment in it's biological development where it had no meaningful existence to speak of, since my mind was not around. My body was never a tapeworm! Lolz. But yes in my bodies early biological development it was even less primitive than a tapeworm. The sperm and egg I came from and the gonadal stem cells they were derived from were even more primitive than the zygote.
This is one of those issues with no right answers because there is no consensus on what human life is. For me it is consciousness or the mind. In my opinion, a body that is alive so to speak, is not a human life without a mind. On it's own without a mind, it is a vegetable. That's why we pull the plug on brain dead individuals in hospital.
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. I respect your point of view. It is good to share our opinions in a respectful way. That is what helps us learn and grow as individuals. Ciao.
"The woman should have the right to their own body"
That's fair enough, but how many of those people who support this view support the legalisation of drugs?
I have been thinking about this a lot since the election. I am pro women's rights and I do understand the other side of the arguement, so how would this be for compromise...Remove and freeze the fertilized egg...we store sperm, why not fertilized eggs? Then these eggs CAN become children for families who wish to adopt.
Nice! Falling into the trap of government-corporate manipulated divisiveness.
GOP and Democrats are two heads on the same beast. They're good at keeping alive the illusion of choice, especially on matters that don't affect the future survival of America.
First of all, both Republicrats and Demopublicans trashed the art of voting and parliamentary procedure at their last presidential conventions. The members voted, but their votes were ignored along with their protests. The script must be followed. All caught on video! (Check out WXIX, Ben Swann, "Reality Check" for 2012 political season.) The death of American politics is now official. And I wouldn't be surprised if the electronic manipulation of votes found in Florida is nationwide. So, no matter who you vote for, the Corporate Party wins.
Abortion is murder simply because it is the premeditated killing of a human. Simple. Certainly, women have rights to their bodies, but not to the body of someone else. When a child is conceived, the woman, like it or not, has a responsibility to that life. To destroy that life is entirely irresponsible.
Someone wants America out of the way so they can build their one-world government. They've made lots of progress. European Union and United Nations are two big breakthroughs. Most people don't know that the North American Union and its Amero currency are moving ahead, despite the lack of public awareness. Even the economic pundits are proclaiming the wonder of the new Amero.
Corporations are consolidating, nations are consolidating and the world will be one, big happy family, if they get their way. But it'll be one big slave society run by an elite few. Yep, George Orwell's 1984.
We already have the signs. "War" has become "peace-keeping actions." Really! President Obama has his Kill List which includes Americans (no trial, no recourse, bang!). And now it's a felony to protest what the government is doing. Bit by bit, they're eliminating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights until there is nothing left of America but the name.
That's what is at stake. While you point fingers and squabble about such issues, national debt is skyrocketing and on purpose. This will create a bubble the likes of which humanity has never seen even in its deepest, darkest nightmares. When that Debt Bubble pops (somewhere between $17 Trillion and $30 Trillion?), Earth will be economic toast, and America will be ground zero.
If you get your news from the Corporate Party media, you're merely sucking on the tit of Corporate Party lies, to keep you asleep as sheep long enough to finish their dirty work.
Heck, if you believe the Bush "conspiracy theory" of 9/11, then you're just sheeple sleepwalking to your own slaughter. 9/11 was Americans murdering Americans for profit and political gain. They kept the FBI from touching their Al Qaeda patsies so that they'd be able to play their part on 9/11.
And the "hero" of New York, Mayor Giuliani, committed a felony cleaning up the largest crime scene in American history before an investigation could be conducted. Cover up!
And the military officers responsible for the failures on 9/11, all given promotions instead of courts martial.
Asymmetric damage (WTC, NYC) never leads to symmetric collapse except in cartoons. Controlled demolition brought down all 3 buildings.
Controlled demolition requires months of preparation. The fact that WTC was highly secure means that the Bush-family-run security company and the CIA were complicit.
That's a false flag operation quite similar to the failed Operation Northwoods 40 years earlier.
Wake up people. Get smart or lose America altogether. That's modern politics.
And some people are so skilled at Normalcy Bias, just like the Germans 80 years ago. Labeling things "unpatriotic" or "oppressive" or "nuts," but missing the tyranny that Hitler and his skilled band of thugs perpetrated. We now have the new and improved, Hitler 2.0 -- no single figurehead to blame. A dumb, country hick of a president when we needed the plausible deniability of a government that could not possibly have been behind 9/11. And a slick, silver-tongued devil of a president, when we need to distance ourselves from the Bush-isms of the past. Obama puts a sexy cover on tyranny. His sweet lies could be our undoing, just as Bush's verbal slip ups kept us from realizing his complicity in the biggest crime in American history. Now, the Bush and Bin Laden families are laughing all the way to the bank.
this is a prime example of the irrational thinking that degrades the nation.
it is quite immoral when someone tries to depict one act of killing as good and that another act is bad.
everyone needs to recognize that killing is killing regardless of the means utilized.
in the case of the picture of the woman depicted, the killing takes place as a personal decision.
and it is the same in the case of the gun because it is still a personal decision.
it is the lack of personal responsibility that has created the increase in killing in the country.
immoral evil is the problem -
the sooner the citizens of this nation recognize this, the sooner we can try to start correcting the problem.
by JRs 7 years ago
Is abortion about women’s right or is it about the right to life?I get so mixed up in that debate, it would seem that the right to life outweighs any right of personal choice, but many see it much different. What is your opinion about abortion? What supersedes what? Do men have a right to a choice...
by Susan Reid 10 years ago
These "Stop the Mandate" protesters were at the Capitol (Sacramento) today. I was at a meeting inside and the building had to be evacuated (I heard it was because of them but who knows).Do you agree that this is a religious freedom issue or is it being twisted into one?The Pro-Life Action...
by weholdthesetruths 11 years ago
In another thread, someone accused me of being inconsistent, with my commentary about rights being inherent to the individual, not provided by, enumerated by, or dependent upon government or legislation. When I said that a person CAN be deprived of life by a jury, I was accused of being...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
NEVER, EVER understand about a woman's unmitigated right to choose & control her reproductive destiny?
by J.R. Smith 12 years ago
what are your thoughts on this one?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 years ago
liberalization and the broadening of women's reprodutive freedoms, especially in terms of a woman's right to choose and the issue of contraception? What makes some conservative men view a woman's greater reproductive freedom and/or choice is an affront to "morality" and "family...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|