Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Obama and abortion.
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 7:20 pm Post subject:

Chris2007 wrote:

Whats unethical is taking the life of an unborn child.
In the vast majority of cases women and men made the choice to become pregnant through their own actions. They have choices - not having sex, sterilization, birth control, adoption or raising the child. The child doesn't have other choices.

Not as unethical as legally forcing a woman to labor under an unwanted pregnancy, sorry. If you don't like it, I've given you a solution you can pursue which preserves the woman's rights while still allowing the child to live. I suspect you will not pursue this solution in any way.

Chris2007

Joined: 20 Mar 2007

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 8:24 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Killing the child is more ethical? Considering that the vast majority of abortions are not for health reasons, and considering there are choices available other than abortion, I would have to strongly disagree.

Fox wrote:

That's the end result of abortions, not just the type of abortions we are discussing. Abortion results in the fetus dying, otherwise it's not abortion. Obviously abortion in general isn't the best result for the fetus. If that concerns you, get working on an artificial womb so our society has other viable, ethical options, or at least support others who are working on it.

At least we agree on something.
So do you believe that the unborn child has rights at any time before birth whatsoever?

Fox wrote:

I'm sure almost every parent would like to know if their child is pregnant and wanting an abortion. The good ones find out without state involvement. The bad ones might not. In our current parental system, it is not the state's responsibility to keep you informed about your child, it is your responsibility. If you can't handle that responsibility, you should not be a parent.

It is ultimately the parents responsibility to keep track of their kids, no doubt. I'm just being realistic that some good parents will not find out, just as some bad parents will find out. The state intervenes in all of our lives in many ways each and every day, whether we like it or not. Sometimes its to protect us from ourselves. Sometimes its to protect us from others. I see no problem with the state intervening on behalf of a minor and the parents in a serious situation like this.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 8:44 pm Post subject:

Chris2007 wrote:

Fox wrote:

Killing the child is more ethical?

In this particularly circumstance (because the child cannot survive without support from the woman's body), yes.

Chris2007 wrote:

At least we agree on something.
So do you believe that the unborn child has rights at any time before birth whatsoever?

None that supercede the right of a woman to be free of unwanted pregnancy.

Fox wrote:

The state intervenes in all of our lives in many ways each and every day, whether we like it or not.

In my estimation, the ideal is to find a balance. State intervention costs money, so in order to justify it, there must be a compelling factors, and I find nothing uniquely compelling about abortion operations such that it justifies such specific treatment as opposed to many other medical procedures.

The proponents of this intervention would have been much better served by arguing any out of state medical procedure undertaken by a teen should be reported to their parents, it would have been much more likely to pass, and it would still have gotten them what they claim to have wanted. It also wouldn't have been an unambiguous victory for anti-abortion legislation, however, which is why it didn't happen. Make no mistake, this bill was purely political in nature.

dmbfan

Joined: 09 Mar 2006

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 8:47 pm Post subject:

So, the state is not responsible for keeping track of children for the paretns, eh? Not even a little? All that does is empower children.......nothing more. dmbfan

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 8:52 pm Post subject:

dmbfan wrote:

So, the state is not responsible for keeping track of children for the paretns, eh? Not even a little?

All that does is empower children.......nothing more.

When a teenage girl is faced with anti-abortion parents who would restrict her from aborting an unwanted pregnancy out of some misguided sense that what is growing in her womb has greater rights regarding her body than she herself does, I don't mind that child being empowered a bit.

dmbfan

Joined: 09 Mar 2006

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 9:07 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Ah, you now you want to assume that parents are anti-abortion? OK, well go ahead and twist things up all you want...we don't mind. But, parents have the right to know what is happening with their child, especially in this case. Kids often don't make wise decisions and parents need to be there for them. Whether you agree with is or not, is up to you.

Kids should rarely have power over their parents. What I mean by power in this case, is being able to hide the event itself....not whether it is right or wrong.

dmbfan

Chris2007

Joined: 20 Mar 2007

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 10:15 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Chris2007 wrote:

Killing the child is more ethical?

In this particularly circumstance (because the child cannot survive without support from the woman's body), yes.

In cases where the fetus is viable, it can survive apart from the woman's body. Even if it cannot, thats all the more reason to ensure that the child does have rights, because s/he is unable to speak for itself and to defend itself. The woman, on the other hand, made choices and still has choices. Aborting the kid shouldn't be one of them.

Fox wrote:

Chris2007 wrote:

The state intervenes in all of our lives in many ways each and every day, whether we like it or not.

There certainly are compelling factors to consider. There have been many undercover reports showing that abortion clinics are all too willing to lie and not report statutory rape. In this video the girl says she is 13 and that her boyfriend is 31. Yet the nurse does nothing, a clear violation of the law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLDGFzdPjBU&annotation_id=annotation_768592&feature=iv

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 12:58 am Post subject:

dmbfan wrote:

Ah, you now you want to assume that parents are anti-abortion?

I never made such an assumption, no.

dmbfan wrote:

But, parents have the right to know what is happening with their child

Agreed, but it's a negative right. They have the right to not have information about their child actively hidden from them, not the right for others to gather information for them and present it to them. They especially do not have the right to have the state do this for them. As long as the hospitals would report honestly and openly regarding any inquiries the parents might send, this right is not being violated.

dmbfan wrote:

Kids should rarely have power over their parents. What I mean by power in this case, is being able to hide the event itself....not whether it is right or wrong.

I'm not saying they should be able to hide it; if the parents go to the hospital and ask, the hospital should report honestly and openly. Rather, I'm saying it's not the state's responsibility to do the checking for the parents.

Parenthood is first and foremost about responsibility. This is an example of that responsibility. Can't handle it? Don't have children.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 1:19 am Post subject:

Chris2007 wrote:

In cases where the fetus is viable, it can survive apart from the woman's body.

In cases where the fetus is viable, I agree abortion is inappropriate. However, as NPR notes here:

NPR Article wrote:

And contrary to the claims of some abortion opponents, most such abortions do not take place in the third trimester of pregnancy, or after fetal "viability." Indeed, when some members of Congress tried to amend the bill to ban only those procedures that take place after viability, abortion opponents complained that would leave most of the procedures legal.

Let's be realistic, there's no reason for you to discuss fetal viability with me. I've all ready admitted no viable fetus should be aborted, and even said abortion itself would be unjustifiable if artificial wombs were availible. I think we can safely assume the conversation is limited to non-viable fetus abortion.

Chris2007 wrote:

Even if it cannot, thats all the more reason to ensure that the child does have rights, because s/he is unable to speak for itself and to defend itself. The woman, on the other hand, made choices and still has choices. Aborting the kid shouldn't be one of them.

You can say again and again that an unwanted fetus has a greater right to a woman's body than the woman herself, but it doesn't make it more true. No one has a greater right to a person's body than the person themselves, regardless of the choices that person may have made.

Chris2007 wrote:

The nurse in question broke the law. The nurse in question should be delt with in accordance with the law. Nothing about that video makes me feel like the state needs to start informing parents of their children's activities in this regard.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 1:21 am Post subject:

Fox, I have to say, I'm really surprised that you would actively try to defend abortion in this way. Although we fundamentally disagree on most things, thus making it some what biased for me to criticize you, I really find your stance on this issue particularly abhorent. Personally, I can accept an individuals right to abort a fetus, as the social cost of unwanted children is much higher than I am willing to countenance. However I would never try to defend abortion in any way shape or form. It simply has no moral justification but a simple cost-benefit analysis makes it a logical thing, at least. Up until this point, I believed you to be a fairly thoughtful and sincere person, who although I consistently disagreed with was nonetheless a person of integrity. Now I can't help but see you as a person so completely enamoured to the leftist agenda that he can't make a rational desision for himself.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 2:15 am Post subject:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Fox, I have to say, I'm really surprised that you would actively try to defend abortion in this way. Although we fundamentally disagree on most things, thus making it some what biased for me to criticize you, I really find your stance on this issue particularly abhorent.

Personally, I can accept an individuals right to abort a fetus, as the social cost of unwanted children is much higher than I am willing to countenance. However I would never try to defend abortion in any way shape or form. It simply has no moral justification but a simple cost-benefit analysis makes it a logical thing, at least.

Up until this point, I believed you to be a fairly thoughtful and sincere person, who although I consistently disagreed with was nonetheless a person of integrity. Now I can't help but see you as a person so completely enamoured to the leftist agenda that he can't make a rational desision for himself.

I'm not surprised you fundamentally misunderstood everything I said. It also doesn't bother me.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 2:32 am Post subject:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Up until this point, I believed you to be a fairly thoughtful and sincere person, who although I consistently disagreed with was nonetheless a person of integrity. Now I can't help but see you as a person so completely enamoured to the leftist agenda that he can't make a rational desision for himself.

That's a gem.

I don't see many problems with Fox's argument. I really don't believe any woman should be forced to undergo a pregnancy she does not want. It's hardly a walk in the park.

I guess that means I too can't make a rational decision for myself.

Axl Rose

Joined: 16 Feb 2006

Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 2:36 am Post subject:

Chris2007 wrote:

The woman, on the other hand, made choices and still has choices. Aborting the kid shouldn't be one of them.

Spoken like a true pulpit-thumping Christian

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 3:01 am Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Are you being sarcastic? You defend a murderous religion to the death, I guess you really can't make rational decisions.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 4:06 am Post subject:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Are you being sarcastic? You defend a murderous religion to the death, I guess you really can't make rational decisions.

A murderous religion. Sufism?

Or have I been defending that murderous religion Christianity again?

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe