"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey
As always I_love must censor threads, truth for the right requires their truths only, every dictator and statist nation knows that it must control information, its citizens, and their communication. That said, the right cares nothing for children as its policies demonstrate. Nor does it care about the rights of the mother and the child's well being after birth. If it did at least it would seem less phony.
If the conservatives cared about abortion they'd care about the life of the mother by supporting her, they do nothing, if they cared about the child, they support nutritional and educational supports, they do nothing there either. Morality confuses the right, absolutists only preach, the complexity of living is beyond their understanding.
As I noted in a few links below abortion is the hypocrite's crutch. It requires nothing from the moral absolutist and involves the State in a family matter. Oh and one more thing, no masturbation and if married make sure no contraceptives are ever used for if so you too are aborting the potential for life. Try not to be a hypocrite.
The interested reader can check my links and the book noted below.
"It seems to me that a case can be made for taking a human life statute that dates the origin of personhood at conception to be an "establishment" of religious doctrine. The argument runs as follows. For reasons given above, it is quite contrary to common sense to claim that a newly fertilized human ovum is already an actual person. Employing the term 'person' in the normal fashion, no one thinks of a fertilized egg in that way. The only arguments that have been advanced to the conclusion that fertilized eggs are people, common sense notwithstanding, are arguments with theological premises. These premises are part of large theological and philosophical systems that are very much worthy of respect indeed, but they can neither be established nor refuted without critical discussion of the whole systems of which they form a part. In fact, many conscientious persons reject them, often in favor of doctrines stemming from rival theological systems; so for the state to endorse the personhood of newly fertilized ova would be for the state to embrace one set of controversial theological tenets rather than others, in effect to enforce the teaching of some churches against those of other churches (and nonchurches), and to back up this enforcement with severe criminal penalties. The state plays this constitutionally prohibited role when it officially affirms a doctrine that is opposed to common sense and understanding and whose only proposed arguments proceed from theological premises. This case, it seems to me, is a good one even if there is reason, as there might be, for affirming the personhood of fetuses in the second or third trimester of pregnancy." http://www.ditext.com/feinberg/abortion.html
This is about rights harm etc and for the open minded a complex read. 'Freedom and Fulfillment' Philosophical Essays, Joel Feinberg
earlier posts on jpp
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ess-bitch-in-New-Jersey&p=1487685#post1487685
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ven-a-human-being-.....&p=1118744#post1118744
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ll-post-puberty-females&p=1215211#post1215211
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?41846-America-s-Religious-Terrorists
The rich will always have access to abortion only the poor and needy suffer.
"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time."
http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/b...tt-pro-reclaiming-abortion-rights-review.html
http://bostonreview.net/BR20.3/thomson.php
If your argument is from religion:
No religion has ever defined when human life begins. Catholicism considers sexual activity as procreative activity and thus wrong outside of marriage or for pleasure and not the propagation of the faith.
Until recent history, a child was only considered a person after the age of seven. Death before then meant the soul went to a place called purgatory. Considering that none of this is known nor verifiable, without direct communication with a god it hasn't any relevance.
If your argument is from cellular conception
Three out of five conceptions end normally so if human life as defined above does not exist, conception is not the beginning of human life.
If your argument is from potential:
Each egg and sperm is potential life and thus sex outside of the creative process has potential to be human life. If you accept potential you must accept its consequences. Death is also the result of birth so potential arguments are too vague for consideration.
As always I_love must censor threads, truth for the right requires their truths only, every dictator and statist nation knows that it must control information, its citizens, and their communication. That said, the right cares nothing for children as its policies demonstrate. Nor does it care about the rights of the mother and the child's well being after birth. If it did at least it would seem less phony.
If the conservatives cared about abortion they'd care about the life of the mother by supporting her, they do nothing, if they cared about the child, they support nutritional and educational supports, they do nothing there either. Morality confuses the right, absolutists only preach, the complexity of living is beyond their understanding.
As I noted in a few links below abortion is the hypocrite's crutch. It requires nothing from the moral absolutist and involves the State in a family matter. Oh and one more thing, no masturbation and if married make sure no contraceptives are ever used for if so you too are aborting the potential for life. Try not to be a hypocrite.
The interested reader can check my links and the book noted below.
"It seems to me that a case can be made for taking a human life statute that dates the origin of personhood at conception to be an "establishment" of religious doctrine. The argument runs as follows. For reasons given above, it is quite contrary to common sense to claim that a newly fertilized human ovum is already an actual person. Employing the term 'person' in the normal fashion, no one thinks of a fertilized egg in that way. The only arguments that have been advanced to the conclusion that fertilized eggs are people, common sense notwithstanding, are arguments with theological premises. These premises are part of large theological and philosophical systems that are very much worthy of respect indeed, but they can neither be established nor refuted without critical discussion of the whole systems of which they form a part. In fact, many conscientious persons reject them, often in favor of doctrines stemming from rival theological systems; so for the state to endorse the personhood of newly fertilized ova would be for the state to embrace one set of controversial theological tenets rather than others, in effect to enforce the teaching of some churches against those of other churches (and nonchurches), and to back up this enforcement with severe criminal penalties. The state plays this constitutionally prohibited role when it officially affirms a doctrine that is opposed to common sense and understanding and whose only proposed arguments proceed from theological premises. This case, it seems to me, is a good one even if there is reason, as there might be, for affirming the personhood of fetuses in the second or third trimester of pregnancy." http://www.ditext.com/feinberg/abortion.html
This is about rights harm etc and for the open minded a complex read. 'Freedom and Fulfillment' Philosophical Essays, Joel Feinberg
earlier posts on jpp
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ess-bitch-in-New-Jersey&p=1487685#post1487685
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ven-a-human-being-.....&p=1118744#post1118744
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ll-post-puberty-females&p=1215211#post1215211
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?41846-America-s-Religious-Terrorists
The rich will always have access to abortion only the poor and needy suffer.
"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time."
http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/b...tt-pro-reclaiming-abortion-rights-review.html
http://bostonreview.net/BR20.3/thomson.php
If your argument is from religion:
No religion has ever defined when human life begins. Catholicism considers sexual activity as procreative activity and thus wrong outside of marriage or for pleasure and not the propagation of the faith.
Until recent history, a child was only considered a person after the age of seven. Death before then meant the soul went to a place called purgatory. Considering that none of this is known nor verifiable, without direct communication with a god it hasn't any relevance.
If your argument is from cellular conception
Three out of five conceptions end normally so if human life as defined above does not exist, conception is not the beginning of human life.
If your argument is from potential:
Each egg and sperm is potential life and thus sex outside of the creative process has potential to be human life. If you accept potential you must accept its consequences. Death is also the result of birth so potential arguments are too vague for consideration.
