Who's rights are greater. The master or the slave?

Aye, then we just need to re-legalize slavery and you'll have no problem with it.

 

The same Democrats who say that then want legal requirements that others be sustained with the use of others' taxpayer dollars with or without their consent.

 

Well that is an open comment, there are severla things I don;t want my tax dollars spent on, guess what we do not get to pick and chose which our specific tax dollars are spent on, that falls to those we elect. I know you and others try and claim it is only about the tax dollars but the efforts by that same group to make abortion illegal proves that the claim is bogus. I have visted anti-abortion websites and more than one states that the ultimate goal is the end to all forms of birth control, including the birth contol pills, the old give ya an inch and you take a mile. The reality is abortion, at least for the first three months is here to stay, get used to the idea. That said, my suggestion would be sex education classes push adoption far more than it is, carry the fetus to term then allow someone that wants a baby to have it, it would reduce abortions and help out childless couples, not to mention the baby's future.

 

Well no, legalising slavery would only extend the concept of property rights to people, as in, people can be owned. So you would give some people no rights. That might be a bit difficult in practice.

If that happened then the slave and the progeny of slaves would be the property of the slave master. The slave master could force slaves to copulate in order to reproduce. The slave owner could force the slave female to give birth; or to terminate the pregnancy, as the slave owner wished. The slave owner could castrate the male children and force the female children to copulate for breeding purposes the moment they became fertile, regardless of aqe. The slave owner could sell the adult slaves when they were of no or little use or could simply kill them because their economic value was zero. The slave owner could sell the children, of any age, to others, the others could do what they liked with them, breed them, kill them, eat them if they wished.

 

Well, in all honesty, ideally an exception should not be made for rape. I just don't like the idea of a woman being raped by another race, then being forced to have a mulatto baby grow inside her. Take a guess who most of the rapists are where I live. As it is just not feasible right now to make an exception based on race, sadly I think it better that some babies pay the ultimate price. I hope you are able to understand. In any case, my stance is still infinitely more pro-life than how things are now in many states in America. Sweden is rather liberal in this regard also, but not as liberal as several American states.

 

Should a woman be allowed to terminate her pregnancy if she has been raped?

If she was raped by a white man would you want her to carry to full term?

If she was raped by a non-white man would you want her to carry full term?

 

Yes, if a woman was raped by man of similar ethnicity, I would still want her to carry the pregnancy. The baby is still a human life, and assuming it is not defective in any way, I just do not see the justification in terminating it. It just seems so cruel and horrible. At least with interracial pregnancies, the baby is being saved from a life of interracial existence; I just don't think that's fair to the baby.
It's not just white women. If a Somali woman gets raped by a Somali man, I still see no reason justifying the termination of the baby. It is still a perfectly good Somali baby, and shouldn't have to suffer for the crimes of the father. I am not going to condone genocide by proxy, which is what abortions actually are in many cases.
http://blackgenocide.org/black.html

In New York City, for instance, more Black babies are aborted than born alive - for every 1000 babies born alive, 1489 die by abortion.

 

You're focused on the foetus I think.

If the male rapist is of the same ethnicity as the female victim, the female victim should carry the pregnancy to full term.
If the male rapist is of a different ethnicity from the female victim, the female victim should be permitted to terminate the pregnancy.

I think I have that right, please correct me if I'm wrong.

You said that an "interracial" foetus which would be, post-partum, a baby, should be saved from "an interracial existence" because it wouldn't be fair to the baby.

What if a baby, conceived by consensual intercourse, was deformed due to Thalidomide. Should the mother carry the pregnancy to full term? Or should the foetus, potential baby, be aborted because to live with such deformities would not be fair to the baby?

 

I approve of euthanasia for the severely retarded, it's a mercy killing. That should answer your question.
The intrinsic value of life not only depends on quantity, but also on quality. The thing with most supporters of abortion is that they are not basing their considerations upon what is best for the fetus.

I also think there is good and bad, and when one person is making an irreversible decission for someone else who is incapable of making a decision, the state has the right become involved.
Especially with issues of bodily integrity.

 

Euthenasia is a totally different issue.

I asked you some fairly clear questions. Will you answer them or not?

 

I can't see how I could have left any ambiguity. My stance on those issues should be completely clear.

I have set beliefs about what is right and wrong, but recognise that some compromises must be made to achieve the optimal political outcome.

If I support euthenasia outside of the womb, there is no reason I would not support it in the womb. The only reservation I would have is diagnostic accuracy, but that is another issue.

 

So in other words, you disagree with tax payer dollars being used to suppor others, you disagree with someone being able to attach themselves to you and use your kidney, and you disagree with a rape victim being forced to carry the rapist's child for the same reason? Those all follow similar patterns of logic.

The right to one's body and body has generally been held in higher regard than taxable income - maybe this is wrong, but there is a bit of a difference here.

 

A couple matters of opinion here:

That the woman enter's a contract when she has sex. Certainly you must accept the un-preventable consequences of the actions you take, but the consequence of a woman having sex and an accidental pregnancy is the choice to abort or cary to term. She's under no contract, unless you're automatically assuming that she has no right to her body or that the child's right trumps - in other words, you're begging the question.

That the ball of flesh at any given point inside a woman's body has the capacity (biologically, cognitively, or otherwise determined) to have a greater right to life than a cancerous tumor which we gladly remove. Certainly at some point the fleshy mass reaches such a capacity, but this is an object of debate


Particularly in regard to a rape victim, it is a matter of an act of kindness that she would allow the child of the rapist to use her body, I couldn't possibly imagine a legal justification for such a requirement. That's like giving up your kidney for a random stranger. Props to you who would do such a kind act, but you're under no legal requirement.

 

Yes, I was under the assumption that the life of the baby trumps 7-8 months of "convenience" for the mother.
Especially when the pregnancy resulted from the poor choices of the mother, not the baby.

I don't consider a blastocyst or zygote to be a baby, and find it unconscionable (and offensive) that anyone would refer to a 18+ week fetus as, as you put it, a "ball of flesh" and "a cancerous tumor".

Would you call this a "fleshy mass"?


18 week fetus

 

I wouldn't call it a fleshy mass, Anders, but the fetus you posted a picture of there would have to wait another four weeks to have an active cerebral cortex, and would probably be incapable of perceiving pain for 2-8 weeks further after that. It looks a lot more like a person than it actually is at this point in development.

 

Without a brain whixh makes us humans, so yes it is still a Fetus, not a baby or person.

 

And as you stated, that's an assumption. One that doesn't carry much weight or precedent in any case except in the given case. People have the right to control their own bodies. I can't think of any comparable scenario where we've forced the use of anybody's body or body parts to save the life of another.

So in other words, at that point you don't have (as much of) an issue with the concept of abortion, when development has only gone as far as the blastocyst or zygote state? I find that reasonable myself... it means we're thinking along at least somewhat similar lines.

I'd call it more of a cancerous tumor since it's still growing and it feeds off of the mother, fleshy mass doesn't quite fit that description.

Pinning down the point where something just kinds sorta looks like a human vs the point when it may be said to be developed to the point to have the right to life is difficult to pin down. I could support, at some given point, the idea that an abortion should no longer be allowed except for extreme reasons - even in the case of rape. If you were raped, then you should have taken measures after the rape, not 4 months down the road. Whether that point is 18 months, sooner, later, or by some other measure of viability I'm open to debate. But I certainly don't think a zygote qualifies.

 

I agree - taxpayers should have the right to terminate welfare recipients, since they're unable to sustain themselves on their own and leech from taxpayers' personal resources without their consent.

 

Glad we could come to an agreement. I suppose you think I'm all for redistribution and welfare, don't you?

 

Of course the slave owner, in a society that allowed slave ownership, had more rights than the slave. DUH!!!

This thread is so offensive that I am appalled that it has continued this long. Slavery and abortion are not concepts that belong together at all!

More apparent links might be made to wealthy employers and underpaid employees.

Should a wealthy business owner be expected to give up part of their wealth to support the laborers who help create their wealth? How much should they give up? What if those laborers are starving? What if their children are? How much less are the wealthy employers responsible when their profits are declining?

A fetus does not labor for its host. It cannot be sold. It is nothing like a slave.

 

By 18 weeks, ridges are have already formed on the part of the brain that handles memory, language and consciousness. The visual cortex has begun to develop.
Thumb sucking has already begun after only 9 weeks, and the fetus begins to react to touch at this time. While researchers disagree about when the fetus begins to feel pain, all biological indicators show that that the perception of pain has become well developed by the twentieth week.

Stop trying to dehumanise the fetus.

Just because the fetus has a less developed brain does not mean it is not a human life. This was the same sort of argument that was used to justify enslavement of Africans. Just like the slave master came up with absurd excuses to justify his absolute sovereignty over his property (i.e. the slave), pro-abortion feminists have been using the whole brain issue to try to justify absolute sovereignty over the uterus, and all whom may happen to reside within.

 

Respectfully, I never said the fetus was not a human being - merely that it is not yet a person. And because I do not believe in the existence of souls as a spiritual essence of sorts, I find it difficult to see any good reason to regard a fetus more highly than forms of life with equivalent mental faculties. Whereas distinctions of class, race, ethnicity, and so forth are completely superficial in almost every imaginable way pertaining to ones bodily functions and capabilities, a fetus is substantively different in those respects. My apologies for not being more delicate in my choice of words but still, it seems bizarre to me that a bloke could object to killing a fetus before third trimester but not project the same, almost unconditional right to life to animals more advanced than the fetus in a broad range of respects.

 

This is pure fantasy.

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC/FLAMEBAIT >>>

 

Pro-choicers believe the owner's rights are greater...

The woman is the master over her own fetus.

 

A slave is not a helpless fetus dependent on its mother for survival. A slave is a person who is held in bondage and forced to work until they die.

Bad analogy is a bad analogy.

And are there seriously people on the right who still think that blacks aren't human? Seriously?