Is The Fetus An Intruder Or An Invited Guest

[Quester]

Is a baby (fetus) truly an intuder in the womb or is he/she an invited guest?

Hasn't the host acted to send out an invitation?

Would not it be the height of irresponsibility (or worse) for a host to send out invitations, but to hope that nobody shows up ... or even worse, to determine to evict any who respond to the invitation and show up, knowing that such an eviction means certain death for your guest(s)?

Place yourself as a non-Jew in Nazi occupied Europe. You know that the Jews are being hounded and herded by the Nazis, ultimately, to the death. You hear, through the grapevine, that some, in your community, have determined to discretely put the word out on the streets that their homes are available for use as sanctuaries to hide Jews from the Nazis. Those that have done this are quietly being considered 'heroes' in your community. You determine that you would like to be held in such high honor as these, and so, you let it be known that you are willing to take in Jews, as well. But, secretly, you have absolutely no intention of hiding any Jews ... after all, in reality, it would put you in danger and, infringe upon your societal freedoms (after all, Jews in hiding will have needs that only you will have the ability to meet). You hope that no one takes you up on your offer. But, your backup plan is that, if anyone does accept your invitation, you will, at your earliest convenience, discretely contact the Nazis and turn your 'guest(s)' over to them to be taken away to death. Once freed from your emcumbrance, you will put your 'invitation' (to death) back out on the street again.

Is this not immoral behaviour?

[Brad’s Gramma]

When was the last time a fetus was issued a driver's license?

I've not read the whole thread, and am jumping in with this rant. Comment. Using this so called theory of yours, it's OK to kill an over-grown fetus up till the time they get a driver's license? Wow. My mom didn't get hers till she was in her early 70's. 'Spose she was eligible for your abortion?????

You people don't have a leg to stand on, know it, and have to use these statements disguised as an argument.

[donh]

What rights of the mother are specifically trampled by the unborn's right to life?

I already so specified. If a stranger did to a woman what a baby does, it would be considered a horribly intrusive crime akin to kidnapping, slavery, rape, battery, maiming, and theft of service. This is plainly the case. The argument against this rests on implied consent, which is a thin modern disguise for the older argument that it's what she deserves for having sex.

[Hajman]

If I find having a baby repugnant, whatever the reason, I ought to have the right to undo that pregnancy--its a matter of common decency, in my humble opinion. It is not up to someone else to judge the nature of my feelings in that regard. Having a baby is a serious act with serious repercussions on the part of a woman--she and her rights, and the depth and nature of her feelings, were not rendered into used toilet paper that other people can intrusively paw over, by becoming pregnant.

Alright, let's assume I agree with you. I find you totally repugnant. No one should be able to tell me what I can do with those 'feelings' (there's an emotional argument again). Knowing that you're around has serious repercussions on my 'feelings' (there's that emotional argument again). That means I can 'undo' that little mess, and kill you. What? You say I can't do that? Why not? You're infringing on my 'right' to be happy!

(BTW, I'd never wish that on you, and I enjoy having debating with you. However, if I may point out, you just got squashed on your supposed 'right' to happiness.)

-The Hajman-

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

[donh]

Using this so called theory of yours, it's OK to kill an over-grown fetus up till the time they get a driver's license?

If I had made such an argument, it would, indeed, be a poor one. But, of course, I did not. I will hope that you will finish reading the argument before you again respond.

[Hajman]

I already so specified. If a stranger did to a woman what a baby does, it would be considered a horribly intrusive crime akin to kidnapping, slavery, rape, battery, maiming, and theft of service. This is plainly the case. The argument against this rests on implied consent, which is a thin modern disguise for the older argument that it's what she deserves for having sex.

A stranger can't do what a baby (did you just call it a baby? Slip of the tounge, eh?) can, so your point is rather moot. BTW, the value of the life of the fetus is independent on how it got there.

-The Hajman-

[Hajman]

I already so specified.

Actually, no you didn't. State the name of the right, not some "If a stranger did something" argument. Which right, specifically is being harmed?

-The Hajman-

[A Navy Vet]

"Having a baby is a serious act with serious repercussions on the part of a woman--she and her rights, and the depth and nature of her feelings,..."

Feeeeeliings...nothing more than feeeeeliings. So that's your bottom line - how the woman feels about being pregnant and her alleged right not to be inconvenienced. No concern for the living growing human being inside; no concern for the obvious priority of right of life over a non-existant right not to feel badly; no concern for the slippery slope that a lack of respect for human life sends us down. Only the all important all encompassing liberal battle cry! - feeeeeeeliiings!!

[Brad’s Gramma]

What makes a person a citizen is his or her ability to exercise moral judgement competently.

Huh?

[donh]

Alright, let's assume I agree with you. I find you totally repugnant. No one should be able to tell me what I can do with those 'feelings'

I have nowhere suggested that the mother's rights or "feelings" bulldoze other rights, akin to the way Right to Life arguments on this subject work for the fetus, If you think I have, please show me where. I said the mother's rights are on the table, and that they "weigh" more than the fetus's rights, all else being equal, because she is a verifiable current full citizen of the moral community, and the fetus only has the potential for such, and there is nothing obviously sacred about "potential".

[donh]

nothing more than feeeeeliings. So that's your bottom line

I have argued extensively here about many things other than feeeeeelings. This is not my bottom line, it an example, and I'll thank you not to be putting words in my mouth in place of responding in detail to detailed arguments.

[donh]

What makes a person a citizen is his or her ability to exercise moral judgement competently.

Try exercising your absolute right to liberty by driving at 100 miles an hour until you plow into a school bus. See what happens to your unalienable right to liberty. It is quite obvious that you have to constantly re-earn your citizenship by exercising moral judgement.

[Hajman]

I have nowhere suggested that the mother's rights or "feelings" bulldoze other rights, akin to the way Right to Life arguments on this subject work for the fetus, If you think I have, please show me where.

You said that the mother's feelings, if she feels 'repugnant and scared' at the fetus, are enough to allow her to abort. That's feelings trumping the fetus' right to life.

I said the mother's rights are on the table, and that they "weigh" more than the fetus's rights, all else being equal, because she is a verifiable current full citizen of the moral community, and the fetus only has the potential for such, and there is nothing obviously sacred about "potential".

Yet you've never actually said what these so-called mother's rights are that trump the unborn's right to life. BTW, the fetus is alive already. There's no 'potential' about it. Also, everyone has the right to life, citizen or not. Don't believe me? Go out and murder a non-citizen and see what the law says about it.

-The Hajman-

[donh]

State the name of the right,

Oh, come on. Life abounds with such things. Raparian rights, for example, come into conflict constantly, and have to be resolved by the courts. Land rights and access rights come into conflict when my cows establish a path through another farmer's creekbed, and it goes unchallenged for 4 to 7 years, depending on the state. If this specific case, the tort rights of the mother to defend herself from physical harm are impinged by the fetus, assuming, as I do, that it has some small residual of rights.

[Hajman]

Try exercising your absolute right to liberty by driving at 100 miles an hour until you plow into a school bus. See what happens to your unalienable right to liberty. It is quite obvious that you have to constantly re-earn your citizenship by exercising moral judgement.

You don't have a right to drive 100mph. Liberty isn't about being able to do anything you want. It's about being free. Your understanding of the concepts of rights and such seems to be wanting.

-The Hajman-

[MotleyGirl70]

Is The Fetus An Intruder Or An Invited Guest

AN INTRUDER: To feminazi like Hitlery Clinton, Gloria Aldred, Gloria Steinham, Patricia Ireland and the like.

AN INVITED GUEST: To me and other pro-lifers.

[A Navy Vet]

Words in your mouth? The following are your words.

"Having a baby is a serious act with serious repercussions on the part of a woman--she and her rights, and the depth and nature of her feelings,..."

Since it has been determined by documentation (DoI) that happiness isn't a right, and you have shown NO specific right that is being abridged by enforcing the right of life for the fetus, most of your arguement now involves her feeeeeeeliings! But I did also address the alleged right of inconvenience, which doesn't friggin exist. So show us a right that is being trumped by the baby's right to life.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Ever wonder why the FF's put those words in that order? Read through the Constitution, BOR's, and the Federalist Papers sometime. The inescapable conclusion is the FF's understood that some rights had priority standing simply by their importance in relation to other rights. Take a look.

[Hajman]

Oh, come on. Life abounds with such things. Raparian rights, for example, come into conflict constantly, and have to be resolved by the courts. Land rights and access rights come into conflict when my cows establish a path through another farmer's creekbed, and it goes unchallenged for 4 to 7 years, depending on the state. If this specific case, the tort rights of the mother to defend herself from physical harm are impinged by the fetus, assuming, as I do, that it has some small residual of rights.

Everything 'right' you've just listed are priveleges. Also, the mother has no such thing as 'defense against physical harm' from a fetus. How do you define 'physical harm'? Just going out in flu season can subject you to physical harm. Do you have the right to shoot anyone that gives you the flu? If the woman's life is in danger, that's one thing, but 'physical harm' is way to broad. Specify. (And no, self-defense doesn't really come into this, since the fetus doesn't attack the body.)

-The Hajman-

[donh]

Yet you've never actually said what these so-called mother's rights are that trump the unborn's right to life

Yes, that's correct, which makes me wonder what the point of this post is. I said the mother's rights should be weighed in the balance with more consideration than the fetuses. This seems to me to be rather obvious, but perhaps it is not. The fetuses right to life could, on account of that consideration be pushed clear back into the womb, by a very generous take on this bundle of rights, but pushing it to conception is absurd. So, in my humble opinion, by no doubt sheer coincidence, the present law is probably about morally correct in striking the balance between fetal and mother's rights.

[RobRoy]

Is this a pointless question or what?

I don't know you that well so I'll ask: are you being intentionally obtuse or are you being sarcastic?