where will it end????

Visitor (not verified)
anonymous user
Registered: 12-31-1969
where will it end????
21
Thu, 06-19-2003 - 10:57am
i've been at this board for a few days and i've noticed that the right to choose seems to superceed all other rights in PCers views. and i've a few questions to ask

Firstly: why does the right to choose mean more than the right to life? surely to choose you must be alive so why doesn't life come first and THEN the right to live that life as you want to????

Secondly: if the right to choose is so important when will it stop?? if everyone pleases themselves with no regard to others, will anyone be happy, because everyone will do what they want with no consideration for those around them and so their actions will hurt (physically and/or emotionally) their friends, family, boyfriends/girlfriends, husbands/wives, work colleagues, etc

3: if the right to choose eventually becomes embedded in law will we end up in a Gattaca (like the film) situation where everyone is screened for possible defects and if they are deemed imperfect they will be aborted or even killed after birth if a 'defect' isn't detected prior to that??? and if they are carried to full term and let live, will they be treated like a subspecies with no rights?

4: we all agree that stopping WW2 was the 'right' thing to do, but by the 'right to choose' argument Hitler had every right to exterminate 6 million jews and cause unaccountable suffering (physical and emotional) to countless others, simply because he didn't like them, he didn't want to live in a world with them so he 'chose' not to, by killing them>...

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2003
In reply to:
Thu, 06-19-2003 - 4:24pm
the right to choose i think we express is over our own bodies. a man beating his wife is not using his right to choose for himself because the wife does not belong to him. same goes for hitler. this "where will it end" arguement is used a lot concerning gay marriage. i've heard people say that if we let gays marry, then people will want to marry children and then animals. and it just takes common sense to realize the difference.

oh, and i see this one comming..."but the fetus doesn't belong to the mother, its a separate life, even if its dependent on the mother". well, in the case of a battered woman, a rape victim, a murder victim and so on, everyone can agree that a life was altered, shattered or terminated without and kind of consent (not that anyone would give that kind of consent) but the fact is we all agree that a life was violated. not everyone can agree if a fetus counts as a life. a potential life, maybe. who knows, we might never agree on when life truly begins.

oh, and the gattaca reference, i'd think that be more of a possibility if the government started taking away our rights as humans (aka the right to choose). and plus, in gattaca people were not forced to alter their babies, it just became the norm to make sure their child had every possible chance of living life without disease or defects. i don't remember a point in the film where a child was killed or aborted because of a defect. i know they did use several sperm and egg combinations to get the best DNA match up.

Avatar for myshkamouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to:
Thu, 06-19-2003 - 6:34pm
Firstly: why does the right to choose mean more than the right to life? surely to choose you must be alive so why doesn't life come first and THEN the right to live that life as you want to????"

The right to life, when we are talking about a living, breathing, sentient, born person is paramount. However, it gets "murky" when we are talking about an 8 or 9 week old fetus (when 90% of abortions take place) hence the debate. In my opinion, a fetus has no rights at that stage. In law, a fetus has no rights that supercede a womans at that stage. At that stage a fetus doesnt feel, it isnt sentient, it doesnt even *know* its alive therefore it isnt in a position to "choose" anything. Therefore the woman makes a choice on its behalf. She must be able to make a the choice that is right for her, given she is the only thinking, feeling, living, sentient being involved between the two, as the fetus isnt a person that can make choices, nor is it sentient, nor viable.

You can't *ask* a fetus to choose anymore than you could ask a sperm and egg to choose.

"Secondly: if the right to choose is so important when will it stop??"

Simple. In this case it stops at 24 weeks or so, in 42 states, unless there are serious medical considerations involved. You can't extend the "right to choose" to unrelated areas anymore than you can other rights.

"if everyone pleases themselves with no regard to others, will anyone be happy, because everyone will do what they want with no consideration for those around them and so their actions will hurt (physically and/or emotionally) their friends, family, boyfriends/girlfriends, husbands/wives, work colleagues, etc"

Again, you can't extend that argument logically. All those you mention above are living, breathing, thinking, born viable human beings with opinions of their own, who really cannot be compared to an 8 week old fetus. The later can feel pain, emotion, etc. the former cannot.

"3: if the right to choose eventually becomes embedded in law will we end up in a Gattaca (like the film) situation where everyone is screened for possible defects and if they are deemed imperfect they will be aborted or even killed after birth if a 'defect' isn't detected prior to that??? and if they are carried to full term and let live, will they be treated like a subspecies with no rights?"

Oh please. You know the anser to that. Don't tell me you base your views of reality on films?!

"4: we all agree that stopping WW2 was the 'right' thing to do, but by the 'right to choose' argument Hitler had every right to exterminate 6 million jews and cause unaccountable suffering (physical and emotional) to countless others, simply because he didn't like them, he didn't want to live in a world with them so he 'chose' not to, by killing them>..."

Good grief. No, sorry, you can't compare a living, sentient human being who can feel pain and emotion to a fetus at 8 or 9 weeks that simply can't. And, you are talking about genocide. Attempting to exterminate a religious group. Fetus's arent comparable. Frankly as a woman of jewish origin, I'm insulted at the comparison. Not to mention the comparison is absolutely absurd.

MM 28 weeks, 1 day pregnant w/twins

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-09-2003
In reply to:
Thu, 06-19-2003 - 9:05pm
Myshka-

Just one quick question because you keep mentioning the 8-9 week fetus range. Why not the 10-23 week range that, according to your cutoff day of 24 weeks, is still okay as far as you're concerned? I just want to get your perspective straight- 24 week old fetus is a sentient being- 23 week old is not? I realize the 90% take place in that time, but it's fairly easy to find a clinic "specializing in abortions through 24 weeks". And the clinics in those eight states are easily accessed by residents of the surrounding states, so those restrictions don't mean a whole lot. Where I live, it is COMPLETELY unrestricted up to 24 weeks.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-11-2003
In reply to:
Thu, 06-19-2003 - 9:35pm
first: why does a woman's rights ahve no meaning and why should be forced to be a breeder against her will? where is the compassion for already born persons?

second: big difference between boprn persons and unborn fetuses. therer is no proof that having an abortion means someone cares less for everyone around them.

third: in Gattaca those with genetic imperfections were relagated to certain kinds of work and excluded from others. and it is called MURDER to kill a born baby.

fourth:your post leaves a foul taste in my mouth when you even try to compare the murders of 6 millions Jews to fetuses. it is insulting and inflammatory.

Visitor (not verified)
anonymous user
In reply to:
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 3:25am
i apologise for not having made my point clearer,and i will try and clarify the points that i didn't make clear enough, as they come up.

the WW11 reference, was an extreme point that by the *logic* of 'right to choose' that anything can be justified. i'm not saying that genocide is the same as abortion (because IMO although the two are awful they are not comparable) i'm just saying that the *logic* can be used to justify appaling acts like that (in the minds of hte perpitrators). in Hitler's mind the Jews (and anyone who was not of 'Aryan' descent) were subspecies - they didn't count as human in his mind so he used this to justify exterminating them.

normal logical thinking people will not go to such extremes with the 'right to choose' viewpoint, but their are always people out there who latch onto an idea completely unrelated to their way of thinking and twist it to suit their own ideas. the point i was trying (and failing) to make, was that if it starts with something like abortion where the argument has some merit, there is no reason why others won't use the argument as an excuse to further their own ends.

Visitor (not verified)
anonymous user
In reply to:
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 3:32am
i sincerely apologise for insulting you with the post, it was not my intention to insult you or anyone else.

i also apologise to anyone else who was offended.

Sincerely

Sparky

Visitor (not verified)
anonymous user
In reply to:
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 4:04am
ok, i was arguing that the 'right to choose' argument could be taken to extremes in the future.

i still stand by the first question, i really want to know the arguments why the right to choose superceeds the right to life.

this is my thinkin behind the question, saying the fetus has no feelings or emotions doesn't stand well IMO, that's exactly my point, it HAS no feelings, only life so why doesn't the life come first and obviously later on the ability to make decisions will come. i'm not saying that that is the way it should happen, just why do people agree/disagree...

for the second question, my point was:

-the right to choose was based on people pleasing themselves,

-i wasn't speaking purely in the context of abortion

-if everyone pleases themselves will we as a society be happy if everyone pleases themselves with no regard to others, or will we simply have chaos?

i was not saying that the future would end up like that in the film, merely using it as an example that i figured most people would identify with. the point was that if we choose to abort babies because they are deformed (not talking bout extreme cases like the child not having a brain etc) will it stop at aborting them for medical reasons or will it continue so that little things like eye-colour or hair-colour are factors?

also the reference to murdering the children after they are born is not so far-fetched, there was in recent years a proposal that if a child is born disabled that they wouldn't be classed as alive(or born) unless they filled certain criteria. so if the child, legally doesn't count as alive, it is perfectly ok to abort them. personally i find the idea that anyone would come up with an idea like that and actually consider it very sad, but that's not the debate i was trying to start, only if people thought that that could happen and why/whynot?

i have already apologised for the lack of clarity with the WW2 point and i hope i have made it clearer (a few posts back for anyone just arriving). the point i was trying to make was that if people simply say 'the right to choose' (as opposed to 'the right to control over your own body' which is really what people mean by right to choose),

those 3 words can be interpreted to justify all kinds of actions by those who wish to find any excuse to do what they want.

i hope this is clearer,

again apologies for any offense caused.

Sparky

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
In reply to:
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 7:54am
You can't *ask* a fetus to choose anymore than you could ask a sperm and egg to choose

**** also can't ask a 3 month old to choose can you?

Photobucket

Avatar for myshkamouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to:
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 7:55pm
"Just one quick question because you keep mentioning the 8-9 week fetus range. Why not the 10-23 week range that, according to your cutoff day of 24 weeks, is still okay as far as you're concerned?"

I refer to the bulk of all abortions. Simple logic in order to form a consistent, and fact based argument.

"I realize the 90% take place in that time, but it's fairly easy to find a clinic "specializing in abortions through 24 weeks". And the clinics in those eight states are easily accessed by residents of the surrounding states, so those restrictions don't mean a whole lot. Where I live, it is COMPLETELY unrestricted up to 24 weeks."

Sure. It may be possible to get an elective abortion at 24 weeks but, again, the fact is only a tiny % of abortions take place after the first trimester. And your definition of "easy to find a clinic" is subjective. How "easy" would it be for a young woman, with almost no money, to travel interstate to get an abortion at 23 weeks let's say? Not very. Anyway, the fact remains that these abortions are exceptions to the general 'rule.'

Avatar for myshkamouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to:
Fri, 06-20-2003 - 8:00pm
Your argument still doesnt hold water. There will always be some people who will take *any* point of view to the extreme. For example, we all know there are plenty of cases where PL folks murder doctors, women, and others who support abortion or are even in the wrong place/wrong time. By your argument and logic, you'd do away with the PL point of view to prevent those few fringe nut cases.

Fact is, most people won't take the right to choose argument beyond abortion. I can't think of a single exmaple, in fact, where anyone has succesfully. Just as most PLrs won't take that argument to the extreme and go around shooting people.

MM

Pages