@ wirinet, The homeless person or the fetus? I'm confused. Are u saying the sperm was invited because the condom broke?

wirinet:

Although i am not in total agreement with krayola's analogy, yours is also way off. Nobody invites an unwanted foetus, in fact it came in uninvited. You are very wrong to claim that s.ex (aka intimacy according to Seun) is an invitation for a baby. Nothing can be more absurd. People have intimacy in order to satisfy physical and psychological needs  most of the time and only do it to "invite" a baby, very few times in a life time. Unless you are telling me that anytime a couple have s.ex, they must want to have a baby. Then most people would need to have s.ex less than ten times in their life time.

The highlighted portion is non sequitur. S[i]e[/i]x satisfies physical needs, but everyone also knows that is how babies are made. So this holds:

MyJoe:
A mentally healthy adult woman who goes into s[i]e[/i]x at her “unsafe” period can be safely assumed to be saying a prayer asking for a child or children. But you are allowed to say, “no, I don’t want the children.” There are certain measures to make this possible. Take them.

wirinet:
What we should be looking is measures a couple (married or unmarried) can take in order to have s.ex without the fear of having an uninvited guest, and only invite the guest when they really want to. This should include better s.ex education, better prevention mechanisms and techniques,

This buttresses my point: there are preventive measures. Anyone who knowingly spurns them is by her action asking for a kid or kids. It also explains why I do not consider myself a part of the loud, sometimes violent, "pro-life" campaigners. Abortion cannot be stopped by legislation. But we can make impact through education.

wirinet:

I do not accept the argument that  a week old foetus, being a living thing must be allowed to develop into a baby, even if the mother categorically does not want it. It should be noted that an average woman shreds an egg every month for about 30 odd years, giving us a total of 360 eggs.

An egg does not equal a fertilised one. Life begins once fertilisation has taken place.

wirinet:

So if we have improved abortion methods whereby a woman' womb is unaffected, a woman can invariably get pregnant every month. The major problem is that most back street abortion procedures damage the womb each time a woman undergoes abortion and so the womb is easily damages after a few of such abortions. Which would then become a problem in the future when the woman needs to have a baby.

What you seem to be asking for is a world where there are no consequences to wanton s[i]e[/i]x and abortion, that is, a moral state of nature where reckless s[i]e[/i]x and abortion reign. I would be very circumspect about such a world since the boundary is bound to be extended.

I'm pro choice to the core.Every woman has a right to decide whether or not to keep a baby.All those pro-lifers are just a buncha hypocrites; period.

MyJoe:

An egg does not equal a fertilised one. Life begins once fertilisation has taken place.
What you seem to be asking for is a world where there are no consequences to wanton s[i]e[/i]x and abortion, that is, a moral state of nature where reckless s[i]e[/i]x and abortion reign. I would be very circumspect about such a world since the boundary is bound to be extended.

So you mean that the sperm and the egg are not alive, so individually they can be wasted and are of little value, but once they meet as per fertilization, they become "alive" and very valuable.

What consequences are u proposing for wanton s.ex and abortion and consequences for who? the baby, the mother or father?

If you want to know a world where reckless "s.ex and abortion" reign, then you need to go to Scandinavian countries - Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway. Then come back and compare our moral state of nature and theirs.
Oh before i forget Prostitutio.n is also legal in those counties.

wirinet:

So you mean that the spermatozoa and the egg are not alive, so individually they can be wasted and are of little value, but once they meet as per fertilization, they become "alive" and very valuable.

They are of value, very high value. But they are not life, since they are individually incapable of growing to become a sentient human.

wirinet:
What consequences are u proposing for wanton s.ex and abortion and consequences for who? the baby, the mother or father?

The consequences you yourself stated are always there. I propose none.

wirinet:
If you want to know a world where reckless "s.ex and abortion" reign, then you need to go to Scandinavian countries - Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway. Then come back and compare our moral state of nature and theirs.
Oh before i forget Prostitutio.n is also legal in those counties.

I have nothing against the legalisation of pr[i]o[/i]stitution.

@ myjoe. It seems u are not pro-life but pro- "what can grow to be sentient human".

MyJoe:

They are of value, very high value. But they are not life, since they are individually incapable of growing to become a sentient human.

who told you that an egg in incapable of growing to become a sentient human? have you never heard of cloning, whereby a sperm is not required. The genetic material of the woman is stripped up one of her cells and inserted in to the egg and it grows up to be a fetus.

When we have Siamese babies born that share organs why do we choose the one that has the higher chance of survival? Isn't all life "sacred"? Where does the authority to sacrifice one for the other come from? What is the "pro- life" stance on this?

Krayola:


When we have Siamese babies born that share organs why do we choose the one that has the higher chance of survival? Isn't all life "sacred"? Where does the authority to sacrifice one for the other come from? What is the "pro- life" stance on this?

Oh, either way Krayola one of them has to get the ax!

Krayola:

@ myjoe. It seems u are not pro-life but pro- "what can grow to be sentient human".

A spermatozoa is not the same thing as a zygote, Krayola, and you know it. Other than mischief, I can't figure out your question. But mischief is allowed.

@inesqor I know that. I'm trying to understand the rationale behind it. .  they are both sentient beings, So does the potential to live longer give one being more of a right to life that another?

wirinet:

who told you that an egg in incapable of growing to become a sentient human? have you never heard of cloning, whereby a spermatozoa is not required. The genetic material of the woman is stripped up one of her cells and inserted in to the egg and it grows up to be a fetus.

I take the above as a joke. When an egg is fertilised, how many scientists do you summon to its service? I repeat, an egg is incapable of growing to become a sentient human.

@ Myjoe. It's unfortunate that u dismiss arguments that make u uncomfortable as mischief or jokes.


The problem with ur position, IMO, is that u pretend the only thing at stake in a pregnancy is the life of the fetus, and that overrides all other considerations. That distorts the reality of the situation, and IMO cheapens the discourse.

MyJoe:

A spermatozoa is not the same thing as a zygote, Krayola, and you know it. Other than mischief, I can't figure out your question. But mischief is allowed.

and a Zygote is not the same as a sentient human being. AND YOU KNOW IT!! Mischief?

Krayola:

@inesqor I know that. I'm trying to understand the rationale behind it. .  they are both sentient beings,  So does the potential to live longer give one being more of a right to life that another?

Intriguing question, Krayola. Personally, I believe that no one should really have the legal or moral right to place the value of one life over another. My 2 cents. But then, I thank my stars that I'm not a physician! 

P.S> At the risk of Deep Sight accusing me (again) of being a Will Smith freak, this reminds me of Will Smith's beef (in I, Robot) with the NS-4 robots when they saved him rather than a young girl who has "a lesser chance of survival". 

Krayola:

@ Myjoe. It's unfortunate that u dismiss arguments that make u uncomfortable as mischief or jokes.

The problem with your position, IMO, is that u pretend the only thing at stake in a pregnancy is the life of the fetus, and that overrides all other considerations. That distorts the reality of the situation, and IMO cheapens the discourse.

I guess I was sort of in a hurry to leave the office at that time as was rather brusque towards the end of our consersation - no offence was intended to you and wirinet.

Your question did not cause any discomfort. I do not get how you can say I am not "pro-life" but "pro anything that can grow to become a sentient human being" on the basis of my statement that only a fertilised egg, and not a sperm, can grow. But it is possible, of course, that I misunderstood your point. We have already talked about rape and incest and all - so I clearly do not pretend that the only thing at stake in a pregnancy is the life of the foetus. I do not believe that abortion is the way to go in the case of rape, but I believe a woman's decision in this case should be respected, given the circumstances by which the pregnancy came about. I would personally drive her to the clinic. As for "all other considerations", such things are handled on case-by-case bases. But I already stated that in my experience, most abortions do not involve such considerations. You may note that this has been the main thrust of my arguments in this thread.

IMHO (borrow me your fav quip), the point of wirinet's post is not particularly useful. What is the address of the person that has been cloned? Save for human parts for medical use are there plans to start cloning human beings? Ok, let's say for argument, cloning has become an everyday practice. Please recall that countless eggs and sperms are shed in natural processes daily. They are programmed to be shed. Zygotes, on the other hand, are not. They are programmed to become foetuses, without any intervention. An egg, on the other hand, will not grow in a billion years. You will have to get chaps from some swanky London Royal Hospital or Johns Hopkins to get cracking, unsure how many thousand times they will try to get one right.

Krayola:
and a Zygote is not the same as a sentient human being. AND YOU KNOW IT!! Mischief? 

No, a zygote is not a sentient human being. It can grow to become one - that was what I said. It is a virtual human being. An egg on its own does not have such a capability. Your point here?

Again, my apologies to wirinet and you.

InesQor:

Intriguing question, Krayola. Personally, I believe that no one should really have the legal or moral right to place the value of one life over another. My 2 cents. But then, I thank my stars that I'm not a physician! 

I agree, InesQor. In the world, the strong oppresses the weak. It is my opinion that abortion is an extension of this. "It's the way things are", I know. But, to put it simply, it not a good thing.

Krayola:

When we have Siamese babies born that share organs why do we choose the one that has the higher chance of survival? Isn't all life "sacred"? Where does the authority to sacrifice one for the other come from? What is the "pro- life" stance on this?

When they both have a good chance of survival, they are usually allowed to live, right? In the sort of case you have in mind, the motive of "axing" one would be to preserve the life of the one with the better of chance of survival, rather than let both die. Sounds the "pro-life" thing to do to me.

[

MyJoe:



No, a zygote is not a sentient human being. It can grow to become one - that was what I said. It is a virtual human being. An egg on its own does not have such a capability. Your point here?

haha, I was not offended. not at all 

Ok. Let's say a zygote is a human being. That it is a human being does not mean it has a right to the woman's body for 9 months against her will. The right to life does not automatically include the right to someone else's body, or life, for nine months, whether or not they were reckless in their conduct. Like I said in a previous thread that discussed this, saying that because a woman knows the risks of unprotected intimacy she must be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, is, IMO, like saying that because you were in a hurry and did not lock your doors one winter night, a homeless person that strays into your house has a right to live there till the end of the winter when he won't be at risk of freezing to death  (pretend you live in Alaska ). Now, this is not an endorsement of abortion. But I feel that the fact that some people are irresponsible, and use abortions as a "get out of jail" free card, is not good enough reason to force people who have less frivolous reasons for wanting an abortion, to have children they do not want to (and carry a nine month pregnancy). Your moral convictions aside, you will have to demonstrate why a zygote, or fetus in the early stages of pregnancy, has an automatic right to a woman's body for the next nine months.

That something has a right to life, and it's survival depends on you, does not mean you are morally obligated to keep it alive. If someone needs a kidney to survive and you are the only available match, does the person's right to life include your kidney? If Yar-Adua's life depended on him having to be tied to you for nine months would you be morally obligated to let him? (This may seem silly, but that is, IMO, technically what a pregnancy is,. . .unless of course you think Yar Adua's life is worthless and I'll fully understand ) What about for 5 months? 3?

I think we should do our best to discourage abortions, but I just don't see good enough reason to deem them necessarily immoral, or make them illegal. Just my opinion.

^^^ While is I have strong views on abortion, I have never felt strongly about its legalisation or otherwise. It is illegal in Nigeria but that law has hardly any corresponding effect on the society. I do not consider myself a part of "Pro-Life Incorporated" since I disagree with many of their methods, like laying siege to clinics and, in extreme cases, shooting doctors. I would rather cast my vote for education on better s[i]e[/i]x practices.

Your Yar'Adua analogy collapses on a cursory examination. (Yeah, I do think very very little of Nigerian politicians, but that's not the reason for my argument.) I think wirinet covered this point earlier when he talked going out to ask someone in. And here we are not talking about one human being trying to sponge off another, but a helpless and vulnerable one who is entirely dependent on another, in this case, the person that invited it! My neighbour's life is another life - I did not take his kidney or something. The foetus's life is tied to that of the mother who invited it by her action of commission or omission.

I do agree with the argument that in terms of moral and legal rights, a foetus is not the same thing as someone who is already a member of the human community. That is why I would have no problem whatsoever with therapeutic abortion. But allowing people to abort at convenience is manifestly unjust to the other party - the foetus. Children do not fall down from heaven. They come through pregnancy. At that stage of a human's life, he or she (or it, if you prefer) is helpless and vulnerable. Ripping it out is just an extension of what obtains in the world: the strong oppressing the weak.

A zygote or foetus conceived by a mentally stable woman through consensual intercourse has an automatic right to her body. Let's look at this again. S[i]e[/i]x is for procreation. S[i]e[/i]x is also for physical satisfaction. In anticipation of both needs, nature has made things in such a away that there are "safe" periods, when intercourse will not result in pregnancy. But she may still want to enjoy s[i]e[/i]x in "unsafe" periods without desiring to have kids - here, science has rescued us by providing the condom. Ignoring these precautions, most likely for maximum enjoyment, getting pregnant and then opting to get rid of it on some excuse like "I am not ready" is unconscionable.

Like I have stated repeatedly on this thread, the vast majority of abortions are committed because the woman wants to be rid of the little nuisance of pushing a tommy for nine months - with the attendant "problems" of being looked upon as "used", or she is "still in school", or the husband who went on extended leave abroad coming back to meet a baby, or losing shape, or ,   -  not because the foetus is a really pressing problem. I always argued against abortion because not do so will encourage this situation. It is not always a black and white issue, I know, that is why I recognise issues like r[i]a[/i]pe, cases of badly deformed foetuses, etc.

MyJoe:

Your Yar'Adua analogy collapses on a cursory examination. (Yeah, I do think very very little of Nigerian politicians, but that's not the reason for my argument.) I think wirinet covered this point earlier when he talked going out to ask someone in. And here we are not talking about one human being trying to sponge off another, but a helpless and vulnerable one who is entirely dependent on another, in this case, the person that invited it! My neighbour's life is another life - I did not take his kidney or something. The foetus's life is tied to that of the mother who invited it by her action of commission or omission.

That analogy was not about invitations. It was about the limits of someone's right to life. I was trying to point out that one being's right to life does not automatically override another being's right to his/her body. That a being is vulnerable and helpless does not automatically mean another is morally OBLIGATED to keep it alive. Like i told Wirinet, that analogy serves it's purpose, and stands.

Now, this whole idea of the woman having "invited" the pregnancy almost seems to make sense, but when one looks at it closely, it makes little to no sense, in my opinion. Is being aware of the risk of an action, and then taking the action (what u seem to be calling an "invitation", a mandatory sentence to all the possible consequences? That is why I used tha analogy of a homeless person walking into your unlocked home.

If you know u live in a high crime neighborhood, with lot's of homeless drug users, you are aware of the high risk of your home getting broken into. If you are in a rush and go out without locking your doors, you know the risk of someone breaking into your home. If you make an irresponsible decision, leave your doors unlocked, and someone walks into your home in the dead of winter, does the person's right to life, and your "invitation" (since it seems u are arguing that being aware of the risk of getting pregnant is an "invitation" by leaving your door open, give this vulnerable homeless individual the right to your home and your care till the end of the winter?

MyJoe:
But allowing people to abort at convenience is manifestly unjust to the other party - the foetus. Children do not fall down from heaven[b]. They come through pregnancy. At that stage of a human's life, he or she (or it, if you prefer) is helpless and vulnerable. Ripping it out is just an extension of what obtains in the world: the strong oppressing the weak.[/b]

I think the highlighted is an appeal to pity, and not a valid argument. If you can not demonstrate that a zygote or young foetus has an automatic right to a woman's body for the entire length of the pregnancy, regardless of what else is going on in the woman's life, then your claim that terminating the pregnancy is unjust is unfounded.

MyJoe:

S[i]e[/i]x is for procreation. S[i]e[/i]x is also for physical satisfaction. In anticipation of both needs, nature has made things in such a away that there are "safe" periods, when intercourse will not result in pregnancy. But she may still want to enjoy s[i]e[/i]x in "unsafe" periods without desiring to have kids - here, science has rescued us by providing the condom. Ignoring these precautions, most likely for maximum enjoyment, getting pregnant and then opting to get rid of it on some excuse like "I am not ready" is unconscionable.

Like I have stated repeatedly on this thread, the vast majority of abortions are committed because the woman wants to be rid of the little nuisance of pushing a tommy for nine months - with the attendant "problems" of being looked upon as "used", or she is "still in school", or the husband who went on extended leave abroad coming back to meet a baby, or losing shape, or ,   -  not because the foetus is a really pressing problem. I always argued against abortion because not do so will encourage this situation. It is not always a black and white issue, I know, that is why I recognise issues like r[i]a[/i]pe, cases of badly deformed foetuses, etc.

Those are your personal feelings and not an argument for the zygote's right to a woman's body.  I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I think having a child goes far beyond a nine month pregnancy. What I find unconscionable is forcing someone who may be unfit to be a mother to have a child. Then what? Are we going to force her to b.r.east feed every day, and be a responsible mother, and not drink, or smoke, and make sure the baby is in a hygienic environment, or to give it up for adoption and hope for the best etc. You honestly think someone dumb enough to have unprotected intimacy with, possibly, a stranger should be forced to have a child? But those are just my personal feelings and mean nothing in this debate.


I really don't want us to get into all of that. I'll suggest we just focus this debate on whether or not a zygote/young foetus has an automatic right to a woman's body. When we start getting into how we "feel" about things, IMO, it isn't a rational debate anymore. We might as well be on Dr. Phil 

Krayola:

That analogy was not about invitations. It was about the limits of someone's right to life. I was trying to point out that one being's right to life does not automatically override another being's right to his/her body. That a being is vulnerable and helpless does not automatically mean another is morally OBLIGATED to keep it alive. Like i told Wirinet, that analogy serves it's purpose, and stands.

Ok, let's drop "invitation" for now. The analogy still crumples for two reasons. (1) My ill neighbour are I are equal beings in a competitive world. I help him as a favour, not because he is entitled to it. The above does not apply to the foetus. (2) There is a special bond between a mother and child that can never be compared to any other relationship, such as neighbour and neighbour. I am sure there are very very poor kids in your home town who could not afford even Nigerian federal universities, which are among the least expensive in the world. Would your folks have given you a less expensive education to afford these kids some money? Your folks could decide to assist but they are under no obligation to. To you they have an obligation, a moral and legal duty. "Na me take im kidney?" You can never say that towards your child. Now, this is an appeal to. . .  erm. . . LOVE. 

Krayola:
Now, this whole idea of the woman having "invited" the pregnancy almost seems to make sense, but when one looks at it closely, it makes little to no sense, in my opinion. Is being aware of the risk of an action, and then taking the action (what u seem to be calling an "invitation", a mandatory sentence to all the possible consequences? That is why I used tha analogy of a homeless person walking into your unlocked home.

All possible consequences - like a foetus developing ectopically? No. That is not what I am saying. And what we have here is not akin to flying in an aeroplane in one of those countries where planes are often falling off the skies like Iran and DR Congo and hoping the skies are safe that day. Engaging in s[i]e[/i]x without precaution at that time is like pilling your cassava and putting it inside water and expecting it not to ferment. The procedure you just undertook is what ensures the natural process of fermentation in the case of cassava. I do not then see how you can argue that consensual s[i]e[/i]x undertaken by a sane human being without any precautions is not an invitation to a foetus. It is the natural consequence. Abi the person do juju?

Krayola:
If you know u live in a high crime neighborhood, with lot's of homeless drug users, you are aware of the high risk of your home getting broken into. If you are in a rush and go out without locking your doors, you know the risk of someone breaking into your home. If you make an irresponsible decision, leave your doors unlocked, and someone walks into your home in the dead of winter, does the person's right to life, and your "invitation" (since it seems u are arguing that being aware of the risk of getting pregnant is an "invitation" by leaving your door open, give this vulnerable homeless individual the right to your home and your care till the end of the winter?

This analogy still doesn't cut it, in my opinion. Rush to go out? Nah. intimacy, pregnancy and the likes, are serious matters. Try drinking 7-UP the way you drink water then let me know if you still think this analogy cuts.

Krayola:
I think the highlighted is an appeal to pity, and not a valid argument. If you can not demonstrate that a zygote or young foetus has an automatic right to a woman's body for the entire length of the pregnancy, regardless of what else is going on in the woman's life, then your claim that terminating the pregnancy is unjust is unfounded.

Facts. An appeal to facts, in my opinion. They have no power to fight back - this must be asserted, even at the risk of appealing to compassion. Nobody ever consulted them before proceeding to rip them out. (Even the adherents of Shintoism who, it seems, are bothered about it, erect a statue to the foetus and venerate it, after blissfully carrying out the abortion.) The way I see it is you made a request which was granted. Ok, you have changed your mind - don't' want "the thing" anymore. Oh, sorry, this is a serious matter - you can do that with your groceries, but not this. Next time ask yourself if you want one of these beauties before posting an order. Thanks.

Krayola:
Those are your personal feelings and not an argument for the zygote's right to a woman's body.  I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I think having a child goes far beyond a nine month pregnancy. What I find unconscionable is forcing someone who may be unfit to be a mother to have a child. Then what? Are we going to force her to b.r.east feed every day, and be a responsible mother, and not drink, or smoke, and make sure the baby is in a hygienic environment, or to give it up for adoption and hope for the best etc. You honestly think someone dumb enough to have unprotected intimacy with, possibly, a stranger should be forced to have a child? But those are just my personal feelings and mean nothing in this debate.

I am not a Calvinistic right-winger (in fact, I am rabidly anti-that-sort-of-mindset) so this bothers me very much, too. How do we encourage this barely literate woman who can hardly tell her right hand from her left or feed herself to birth it? I listen to radio, watch television and do a bit of travelling, so I know the ravages of poverty and general suffering in the world. But if you pause a bit to think about it, you may realise that liberalising abortion solves nothing. The people so eloquently captured in your description will continue to bring forth children because they don't know better. (Some of those kids survive and do well, some don't.) Without education, their case is tough. It is the cultured people who know all about condoms and other forms of contraceptives that also know about abortion. They are the ones I described earlier as skipping these procedures to get maximum enjoyment and then go flush it out.

@ myjoe,  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this was your argument.

A zygote or fetus is a human being
human beings have a right to life.
Thus, a pregnant woman must protect the zygote's life and keep the pregnancy.


Please correct if I'm mistaken, before I respond to your last post. Thanks. 

^^^I am about to leave the office, else I would have sought out the relevant posts and inserted them in quotes.

In my one but last post, I think, I maintained I have no problem with the argument that a foetus is not, legally and morally speaking, at the same level as a human being who is already a member of the community, hence my complete acceptance of therapeutic abortions. When I referred to a foetus as a human being, I used the word "virtual" to qualify it.

A foetus has a right to life, and the mother is duty bound to ensure this. This is black and white in most cases, but in a small minority of cases, this is not so, hence all the long write-ups.

If you read my last two posts again,  I am sure you will get all clarifications. But if there is anything you consider a contradiction in my posts, please point it out and I will look at it dispassionately.

MyJoe:

Ok, let's drop "invitation" for now. The analogy still crumples for two reasons. (1) My ill neighbour are I are equal beings in a competitive world. I help him as a favour, not because he is entitled to it. The above does not apply to the foetus.

haha aight (there are several problems with this but they'll just distract us too much so I won't dwell on it now)
SO, what exactly is the "right to life" and what does it imply? When u say something has a right to life, what exactly do u mean?
DO all humans have a right to life, or are there degrees of a right to life? Is the right to life of a foetus different from your right to life? Please explain how and why? What obligation does a being's right to life impose on others? I think u will notice that to make your argument, u have to give special status to a fetus on several levels . . so when you claim rights for a fetus on grounds related to it's potential humanity, and then proceed to give it rights that seem to exceed and differ from those of human persons, it throws all kinds of doubts on the validity of your argument.

MyJoe:

(2) There is a special bond between a mother and child that can never be compared to any other relationship, such as neighbour and neighbour. I am sure there are very very poor kids in your home town who could not afford even Nigerian federal universities, which are among the least expensive in the world. Would your folks have given you a less expensive education to afford these kids some money? Your folks could decide to assist but they are under no obligation to. To you they have an obligation, a moral and legal duty. "Na me take im kidney?" You can never say that towards your child. Now, this is an appeal to. . .  erm. . . LOVE. 

It's interesting to read you call the relationship between a fetus and a mother who does not want the pregnancy, "special". IMO, most parents that have special bonds with their kids happen to want their kids. . . Some mothers abuse and maltreat their kids, see them as a burden and their (kid's) lives are horrible. I'm sure u've heard of kids being taken away from their biological mothers because their lives were just hell. I find all these "arguments" based on sentiment and emotional appeals lacking in so many ways. This "special' bond is neither universal, nor automatic. that a woman has a child does not mean she will love or care for the child in an  "acceptable" way.



I'll respond to the rest later today. please bear with me.  Just have to be all over the place today and can't sit on the computer for too long at a time. 

MyJoe:

All possible consequences - like a foetus developing ectopically? No. That is not what I am saying. And what we have here is not akin to flying in an aeroplane in one of those countries where planes are often falling off the skies like Iran and DR Congo and hoping the skies are safe that day. Engaging in s[i]e[/i]x without precaution at that time is like pilling your cassava and putting it inside water and expecting it not to ferment. The procedure you just undertook is what ensures the natural process of fermentation in the case of cassava. I do not then see how you can argue that consensual s[i]e[/i]x undertaken by a sane human being without any precautions is not an invitation to a foetus. It is the natural consequence. Abi the person do juju?

By all possible consequences I don't even mean anything that extreme. I just mean other, IMO, legitimate reasons why a woman may not want to keep a pregnancy. Like I said the only thing at stake in a pregnancy is not the life of the fetus, and I don't think it has to be because of a despoil or a threat to her life that a woman may seek an abortion. A newly pregnant woman may question the wisdom of having a child. .  she may reevaluate her life and realize that she may be unable to adequately provide for the child. She may realize that her drug habits may harm the child. She may have other kids that she takes great care of and just realize that she can't afford another one, maybe because her husband or boyfriend decided to skip town. Now, will there be people who just sleep around and have abortions just because they can? yes. But should we sentence the others to have to tend to a fetus, and then raise a child that they do not want to, or can not, adequately? It is, IMO, unhealthy, both for the woman, and the fetus/baby.


I think I have already shown that carelessness, what you call an "invitation", is not an adequate reason to give another being rights to your property, against your will, regardless of how vulnerable or helpless the  individual is. It does not follow from the fact that a woman is responsible for a pregnancy, that a fetus has a right to her body for nine months. It is not self evident, and you will have to argue that to make it valid as far as this debate goes, IMO.  That a being has a right to life does not mean that it has a right to everything that is required to keep it alive. My right to life does not include your kidneys, even if your refusal will kill me. My right to life does not mean i can live in your home for a winter, even if you kicking me out will kill me, and even though you invited me in. I'm not sure, but I think even parents who do not want their own kids anymore are allowed to drop them with the state.  So you will have to argue for why a zygote/ young fetus has a right to a woman's body, against her will, for nine months.

Who Murdered Clarice? Is a tract that shows the difference between the pro life and the abortionists. Click on the link below to get a peep on what it is all about.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1009/1009_01.asp

What is an abortionist?

What you now call "pro-choice."

^^^ No sir. An abortionist is the person (doctor or not) who terminates the pregnancy of the mother.

@Krayola
Haven't been active online myself. 

Krayola:

haha aight (there are several problems with this but they'll just distract us too much so I won't dwell on it now)
SO, what exactly is the "right to life" and what does it imply? When u say something has a right to life, what exactly do u mean?

Yes, "rights" are subjective. It would be fruitless talking about the rights of someone waiting for a heart transplant if there was no heart. That is why it is not a word I personally bandy around. In the abortion debate, I would only make reference to the rights of the matter when you supporters of abortion rights go on and on about the rights of the woman. "It's her body." But the clarification I have made above does nothing for your argument. The foetus does have a right to life.

Krayola:
DO all humans have a right to life, or are there degrees of a right to life?

According to the Constitution, the state has a duty to protect the lives of its citizens. From both the religious and legal perspectives, all men are equal. Or that is what the books say.

Krayola:
Is the right to life of a foetus different from your right to life? Please explain how and why? What obligation does a being's right to life impose on others? I think u will notice that to make your argument, u have to give special status to a fetus on several levels . . so when you claim rights for a fetus on grounds related to it's potential humanity, and then proceed to give it rights that seem to exceed and differ from those of human persons, it throws all kinds of doubts on the validity of your argument.

We are talking here about obligations. To put it crudely, the foetus is tied to its mother. The world has been structured to work this way. People come into the world through pregnancy. When you make a request for a child and it happens, you are landed with the obligation of protecting it. I have already stated the obligation the foetus' right to life places on its mother. My argument does give special status to a foetus. There is no chance of survival for a foetus if it is not accorded some special status. What you seem to be missing, I think ignoring, is the fact that applies only in relation to its mother, who is its guardian and protector. She is the one that owes it the obligation to nurture it and birth it. I do not see how you can use that position to argue that I am giving the foetus rights that exceed those of human persons. If you mean exceed those of its mother, I have already cleared that up by approving therapeutic abortions. If you mean it in terms of the foetus constituting a little thorn in the flesh of its mother, I do not buy it. We all live with one form of discomfort or another. I have lived with some health issues since adolescence that have often frustrated efforts to do many things people take for granted, but I don't think about it. When you do it for yourself, it is a necessity, I know. When you do it for someone else, it takes some spirit of sacrifice to realise the necessity. If you mean "problem mothers", let's examine that below.

Krayola:
It's interesting to read you call the relationship between a fetus and a mother who does not want the pregnancy, "special". IMO, most parents that have special bonds with their kids happen to want their kids. . . Some mothers abuse and maltreat their kids, see them as a burden and their (kid's) lives are horrible. I'm sure u've heard of kids being taken away from their biological mothers because their lives were just hell. I find all these "arguments" based on sentiment and emotional appeals lacking in so many ways. This "special' bond is neither universal, nor automatic. that a woman has a child does not mean she will love or care for the child in an  "acceptable" way.

The fact that you are now appealing to sentiments appears to be lost on you, even as this subject can hardly be devoid of them. A newspaper reporter who covers the crime beat told me how some guy came to the police station to complain after his wife pounded him real good!  Husbands act irresponsibly towards their wives. Wives maltreat their mothers-in-law. Employers mistreat their staff. All you have stated above are facts of life. There are kids whose parents prayed and fasted for their coming whose lives are horrible. I empathise with this situation but it contributes nothing to the pro-choice argument. There is no correlation between the availability or otherwise of abortion and the suffering of children across the world. Kids will always be taken away from their mothers even if we have universal abortion - normal people quite spontaneously go mad, a divorce has terrible effects on some people, people join real wacko cults, and other bad things happen. The special bond between mother and child is as universal and automatic among homo sapiens as it is among goats. Where it is not evident is a deviation from the norm, an aberration.

Krayola:
By all possible consequences I don't even mean anything that extreme. I just mean other, IMO, legitimate reasons why a woman may not want to keep a pregnancy. Like I said the only thing at stake in a pregnancy is not the life of the fetus, and I don't think it has to be because of a despoil or a threat to her life that a woman may seek an abortion.

Even before we go into the specifics, I will take this as our point of disagreement on which neither of us will change our position in the short term.

Krayola:
A newly pregnant woman may question the wisdom of having a child. .  she may reevaluate her life and realize that she may be unable to adequately provide for the child. She may realize that her drug habits may harm the child. She may have other kids that she takes great care of and just realize that she can't afford another one, maybe because her husband or boyfriend decided to skip town. Now, will there be people who just sleep around and have abortions just because they can? yes. But should we sentence the others to have to tend to a fetus, and then raise a child that they do not want to, or can not, adequately? It is, IMO, unhealthy, both for the woman, and the fetus/baby.

I just can't care for another child. What do I do? I have to abort it. In the case of poverty, I examined this earlier. I do not believe one more child will ruin her. This should also apply in the case of a skipping husband or boyfriend, that is, what is colloquially called "the ups and downs of life". I do not see how the sudden absence  - through abandonment or death - of the man who is meant to be the father in the child's life, should be construed as a sudden death sentence for it. What happens when she goes into the clinic and the doctor says an abortion will endanger her life? Will you have her smother the child at birth? No. You will find creative solutions. If for some reasons she really cannot bring up the child you will find capable relatives or consider adoption. Now, you will find countless cases of all the above where the children are doing well. Of course there are cases where they are doing badly, as is the normal course of things. You see, Krayola, the greatest miracle of our lives is the ability of man to thrive in the midst of chaos. There are days you wake up in the morning and water isn't running. You find a solution to it. As you are leaving your compound, someone runs his car into yours and you sort it out. You realise you are running late and increases speed, which earns you a speed ticket. You go through all these and still make it to your various destinations and you achieve all you set out to achieve when you woke up that morning! That is the miracle of life: the ability of man to. . . No, I would not have an abortion because chaos just got a tad more chaotic. The seemingly easy way out is not always worth it.

Krayola:
I think I have already shown that carelessness, what you call an "invitation", is not an adequate reason to give another being rights to your property, against your will, regardless of how vulnerable or helpless the  individual is. It does not follow from the fact that a woman is responsible for a pregnancy, that a fetus has a right to her body for nine months. It is not self evident, and you will have to argue that to make it valid as far as this debate goes, IMO.  That a being has a right to life does not mean that it has a right to everything that is required to keep it alive. My right to life does not include your kidneys, even if your refusal will kill me. My right to life does not mean i can live in your home for a winter, even if you kicking me out will kill me, and even though you invited me in. I'm not sure, but I think even parents who do not want their own kids anymore are allowed to drop them with the state.  So you will have to argue for why a zygote/ young fetus has a right to a woman's body, against her will, for nine months. 

I believe I have dealt with this sufficiently. You showed that carelessness is not an adequate reason to give another individual rights to our property in the case of an individual to whom you owe no obligation. A gate-crashing stranger is just "another individual". Or is one "another individual" the same as another "another individual"? I demonstrated this by giving the analogy of your folks, your education and those of your less fortunate neighbours. I will take the "invitation" thing as our other major point of disagreement. Your analogy fails for the reason that the vagrant is not your vagrant, whereas the foetus is your foetus. The bed-ridden fellow requiring a kidney is not my bed-ridden fellow, whereas the pregnancy is my pregnancy. On will, I believe she exercised her will when she willingly underwent the procedure that sets off the natural process of pregnancy and childbirth. Letting your will swing back and forth like a pendulum just doesn't work in matters of this nature.