racism, classism, sexism, and now... 'Bornism'

Discrimination based on whether or not someone has passed out through the birth canal — what could be sillier than that??
Are we really going to discriminate against a certain group of people based on their physical location?
This is the silliest form of discrimination yet, if we just stop for a moment to analyze it.
That's how oppression has always operated in history— people find a way of setting apart other people into a separate group, based upon some readily identifiable feature. So we have the "born" and "unborn"—the latter of whom don't have any rights at all.

 

And it's really silly to give the unborn more rights than the born.....which you want to do.

 

The unborn are more affected than the born. The born in question here also had some degree of initial choice in the matter, the unborn did not.

 

No , if the unborn have the rights of a person then they have equal rights not more rights. Rights are not based on "degree of initial choice". ....(which the woman didn't have)....

 

If you get into this argument, you will then have to say, "why discriminate between one lifeform and the other". Why don't tree's have the same right to life as people? Why don't animals have the same right?

Wherever you set this red-line, your going to please some and (*)(*)(*)(*)-off others. I suppose, being empathetic, I should sympathize with politicians who are forced to weigh in on such things...

 

So you do not believe in prisons?
What about contracts signed between two parties?

Or why, then, not discriminate between one race and another ?
One gender and another ?

 

Criminals choose to commit crimes. Women don't chose to get pregnant. They either do or they don't.

A woman doesn't sign a contract with a fetus, the fetus can't sign a contract.


Why do you want the fetus to have more rights than women??

 

Criminals don't choose to go to jail. The woman might not have explicitly chosen to get pregnant, but that's what happens.

A woman has choice over her contraceptives. The risk of pregnancy can be as low as she wants to make it. But there will always be some risk. The possibility of pregnancy can never be entirely mitigated—not unless the woman is willing to forgo vaginal intercourse.

She might as well have. She knew the risk, and what "terminating" a pregnancy entails.

Because the fetus is more affected by abortion.

 

Same thing. You could start out with species. Then you end up with discrimination based on hair color...height...nose shape...etc.

I guess this is about abortion, so if it is, then for me, murder is murder whether as a seedling or an old man just about to die. However the context of the act is what will likely give us a better understanding of justified or not. I think people get to anchored down in these coin-flip issues where we have to chose a yes or a no and hardly any issue in life is solved by that. Abortion is justified in certain cases and not justified in others and it will always be slippery deciding which one and on top of that, there will be people who abuse the confusion to push their will on the issue one way or the other. You'll never come to a concrete definition of whether abortion is or is not bad. It can only be hoped that we have the wisdom, empathy, and morality to make a good decision on each case as it comes along.

 

" we " ?
You mean a desperate woman who isn't thinking clearly and would do anything to get out of an unwanted pregnancy?

Or a money-making clinic doctor who sees 20 women a day, and tells her it's just a clump of cells to alleviate her anxiety and get her to fork over the money?
(unlike real doctors, abortion clinics typically charge money upfront)

But he won't let her see the ultrasound?

 

Those are only two types of situations involving abortion. There are others to consider.

For instance, children who have succumbed to some sort of crippling sickness in the wound due to internal or external complications like radiation poisoning. There's also rape. There's also the problem where in some woman, for some reason, giving birth may endanger the life of the mother. There also may be situations with which you nor I have yet thought of that may validate an abortion.

 

Regardless of what we may think about those situations, these cases are not typical
90+ % of abortions are done on normal fetuses, healthy mothers, for no other reason than that the woman doesn't want it

 

No, "we" don't get to decide, the woman who is pregnant gets to decide, no one else. Abortion is justified if the woman who wants it thinks it is.

 

That is the pro-choice abortion position. I think your post succinctly captured its essence.

 

And the pro-life position? "WE decide, not the woman who is affected physically, mentally, emotionally and financially. WE decide if abortion is justified, because women are too stupid."

 

I'd disagree on the moral sense of it, but I do not see a way to force her to stop that would not constitute an equally horrifying violation of the woman, and the concept of forcing her to do it gives me the creeps. I wouldn't want people to have that kind of power over me...

 

You do not see the irony in what you just said?

Hmmm... horrifying violation, forcing someone to undergo something... the creeps.... someone else having that kind of power of you...

No, I certainly do not believe these are good things. They should be stopped if there's any way possible.

That is more of a technical issue than a moral or normative issue.

 

Let us start with the thread title .. totally hypocritical of the author as he knows.

There is no discrimination when there is no person involved, you personal opinion may be that the unborn are persons, yet you, ot any other pro-lifers, have NEVER given an adequate argument why that is so.

You do

Absolutely, so why don't you stop doing it.

Which is exactly what you are trying to do, setting pregnant women apart from other people into a separate group, based upon some readily identifiable feature, so we have the "pregnant" and "non-pregnant"

 

Absolutely no relevance to rights in anyway, shape or form . .basically what you are advocated is that if a person is more affected by something they should have more rights than any other person.

No women EVER has a choice on whether to become pregnant or not, please do some research before making stupid comments like that.

 

Yes what about contracts between two parties, there are two contracts involved, the sexual intercourse contract and the pregnancy contract BOTH require the consent of the woman.

There is no discrimination in abortion .. it is purely an argument of consent.

 

Criminals make a conscience decision to become involved in an activity contrary to the law, a woman does not make a conscience decision to become pregnant UNLESS that is the aim, she may make a conscience decision to indulge in sexual intercourse that includes the risk of pregnancy . .however that risk does not negate her right to refuse to allow a third party to use her body without consent.

As far as I am aware we do not punish people for involving themselves in risky tasks and that is all sexual intercourse is .. taking a risk and a very low risk it is, less than 9%.

All of which is irrelevant.

I suggest you look up what a contract entails before making comments you don't understand or can defend.

so it is not about equal rights for you then, it is about giving a separate group more rights than others ... wasn't that the whole ideology of a number of regimes throughout history?

 

What makes YOU think you are any more qualified to make a decision for another person?

Yes, they do charge upfront, because people like you have taken away the funding .. so not only do you make it difficult for a woman to secure money to pay for the abortion, you berate the people who perform them. great logic you have

BTW, you keep on about this "clump pf cells" yet can't put up any evidence to support this is what doctors tell women.

Pure bollocks, ANY woman can see the ultrasound if she so wishes .. difference is she is not FORCED to see it which is what you want.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is her right, no different to your right to consent or not to your body being infringed by another person.

 

Where as the pro-life position is, a woman doesn't get to decide it must be some other group based on their opinion that a fetus has more rights than any other born person. Rights which they lose the moment they are born, and what was it your OP was about, discrimination based on birth . .exactly what you are advocating.

 

Yes, and your morals are your business but not everyone's morals are the same.

You make a very good point about having power over someone. I doubt those who want women forced to give birth would want that kind of power exercised over them.

It's good you can see both sides.