|
The Right Reverend Bush is at it again | by Blackbyrd2 | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
I don't buy the "woman's life at risk" argument | by crash_ | 2003-11-06 05:28:35 |
|
Why force a woman to undergo major surgery | by thewrongcrowd | 2003-11-06 06:00:22 |
|
So it can grow up and be president someday? | by NOLAWitch | 2003-11-06 06:04:53 |
|
Anti-abortion != religion, fundamentalism. | by walkon | 2003-11-06 06:53:45 |
|
But religion, fundamentalism == anti-abortion. | by thewrongcrowd | 2003-11-06 07:09:43 |
|
Then what's the standard? | by walkon | 2003-11-06 08:33:10 |
|
For a number of reasons. | by thewrongcrowd | 2003-11-06 09:17:38 |
|
But... Those reasons would only convice someone | by walkon | 2003-11-06 09:51:33 |
|
That's not something you're going to find. | by thewrongcrowd | 2003-11-06 11:27:32 |
|
If that standard doesn't exist, | by walkon | 2003-11-06 12:50:46 |
|
They don't have a place in the public debate | by thewrongcrowd | 2003-11-06 14:23:30 |
|
Are we going in circles? | by walkon | 2003-11-06 14:53:04 |
|
You're doing the sidestepping. | by thewrongcrowd | 2003-11-06 15:23:40 |
|
OK... | by walkon | 2003-11-06 16:17:06 |
|
Just in case you check back.... | by thewrongcrowd | 2003-11-06 19:07:02 |
|
And in case *you* do. | by walkon | 2003-11-07 00:39:33 |
| Breaking this up.. |
by thewrongcrowd |
2003-11-07 07:57:31 |
Birth is "not a time" if you have a Eurocentric, male viewpoint. Perhaps specifying the term as "timepoint" makes it more palatable..
.
"...Even though they've existed the exact same amount of time, one is a person and the other isn't." Exactly. Until the second fetus is born, it is not a person. Should the mother and her doctor decide after the birth of the first and before the birth of the second that it is inadvisable for her to continue the pregnancy, her needs take priority over the fetus. (Granted, in such a ludicrous scenario (at delivery of the first, the docs would have induced continued labor for the second fetus), they would induce labor.)
My reference to the legal tradition of birth = personhood was made because it crosses cultures and time. It was based on more than just the U.S. legal history, given that it goes back in exactly that form to Talmudic law and beyond. The form of slavery practiced in the U.S. existed for, what, 400 years? Therefore, the comparison's not relevant.
"Varying degrees of personhood": no a minor doesn't have as much right to live as a legal adult. There are significant legal restrictions placed on minors, and minors have only limited rights of self-determination. The younger the person, the less they are allowed to decide for themselves. Parents in the U.S. are allowed to make decisions for their children that almost certainly lead to the child's death. For example, Christian Scientists refusing medical care on behalf of their children; JWs refusing blood transfusions for their children. |
|
[ Reply ] |
