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?

[Hajman]

See how fast your right to life disappears if you don't exercise moral restraint and refrain from taking the lives of others. Contrary to popular sentiment, all rights are earned by constantly exercising your moral competence, which fetuses have none of.

Please specify. This didn't make any sense. The only time this would make sense is in self-defense. And that doesn't apply to the unborn. BTW, people asleep, in comas, or vegitable people can't make moral desisions either.

-The Hajman-

[donh]

Then why can't a 5 year old exercise his religeous freedom and attend the Church of Satan? Or leave home and become a prostitute in Holland? You are right. I completely don't understand how people can make arguments for fetal rights with a straight face. What makes a person a citizen is his or her ability to exercise moral judgement competently. And his rights improve as his ability to do so improves. This is obviously true by simple observation, in every other rhelm of the law, just as it obviously should be, and nobody raises a fuss about it, except in this venue, where some people want to substitute different criteria about what's "natural" or "biological" or "sacred". This is plainly a bad idea, and it continuously astonishes me that it has modern adherents.

[Hajman]

Please explain how an absolute right to life can co-exist with an absolute right to liberty and happiness.

You don't have an absolute right to happiness. You do have a right to try to be happy though (pursuit of happiness). And responsibility and liberty arn't exclusive. And you do have a right to life. Give me a situation where these conflict.

-The Hajman-

[RightThinkinDood]

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)? This isn't a good analogy and not going to be effective in changing any minds. Since somebody who has sex has no intention of havign a baby it's not an invitation. It's more like leaving your door open because you like the breeze knowing an uninvited intruder might come in.

Better to just say the "intruder' should not be shot unless it threatens your life.

[donh]

Please specify. This didn't make any sense. The only time this would make sense is in self-defense.

Really? And not war, capital punishment, kidnapping or treason? Why did we drop bombs on Libya? Self-defense? Or a combination of revenge and real-politics?

And that doesn't apply to the unborn. BTW, people asleep, in comas, or vegitable people can't make moral desisions either

No, but, many of their rights are passed by the law on to their relatives, just as in the case with the very young, and the very aged or otherwise rendered incompetent. Would you have it otherwise?

[Hajman]

Then why can't a 5 year old exercise his religeous freedom and attend the Church of Satan? Or leave home and become a prostitute in Holland? You are right. I completely don't understand how people can make arguments for fetal rights with a straight face.

You wouldn't understand it in that context, since the questions you ask don't pertain to the fetus' right to life. Apples and oranges.

-The Hajman-

[A Navy Vet]

"Please explain how an absolute right to life can co-exist with an absolute right to liberty and happiness."

Depends on the social contract you have accepted to live by as to which rights trump others. It varies by culture and society, but they are still inherent human rights. BTW, happiness is not a right.

[donh]

And you do have a right to life. Give me a situation where these conflict.

A thirteen year old who has been impregnated by her rapist with something that is both repugnant and freightening to her.

[Hajman]

Really? And not war, capital punishment, kidnapping or treason? Why did we drop bombs on Libya? Self-defense? Or a combination of revenge and real-politics?

Governments wage war and apply capital punishment. This isn't an act of a specific person (though it can be carried out by such, but only as a tool, and not as the cause). Individuals do self-defense (perhaps you missed it, but I did mention that).

No, but, many of their rights are passed by the law on to their relatives, just as in the case with the very young, and the very aged or otherwise rendered incompetent. Would you have it otherwise?

Nope, but apparently you would for the very very young (unborn). You'll allow the passing of rights to relatives for the born, but not for the unborn? Why not?

-The Hajman-

[Hajman]

A thirteen year old who has been impregnated by her rapist with something that is both repugnant and freightening to her.

Emotional argument. And one that won't last forever. Killing the unborn does (and would have an additional emotional impact on the girl that would make the situation much worse).

-The Hajman-

[donh]

You wouldn't understand it in that context

I don't understand it in any context. You can't have "sort of" absolute rights. Either a thing is or it isn't.

If a fetus has absolute rights to life, then it bulldozes the mother's rights, if it doesn't, than the mother's rights are on the table, and lacking devine intervention, her rights are obviously quite a bit stronger than a fetus's rights. It is devine intervention, or sentimental intervention that supports the argument otherwise, no matter how well wrapped up in spurious claims of logic parsing.

[Hajman]

A thirteen year old who has been impregnated by her rapist with something that is both repugnant and freightening to her.

I just noticed something. Are you suggesting that the unborn baby is repugnant and scary to the girl? Or just the pregnancy? If it's the first, you'll have to back that one up. Another emotional argument. You're hitting 100 here today.

-The Hajman-

[donh]

happiness is not a right.

Happiness is a right to the same extent that Life and Liberty are. I have a signed document to that effect, which is often called the primary law: the Founding Clause of the Declaration of Independence.

[A Navy Vet]

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

Ya know, maybe if you actually knew the definitions of the words you're choosing to use, you might understand why some of us are rolling our eyes at your posts:

[citizen n. 1. A person oweing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a given country] Seems citizenry has nothing to do with morality.

[parasite n. 1. An often harmful organism that lives on or in a different organism]

[PoorRider]

You speak of this "citizenship" issue. This doesn't make sense to me. Whether or not a living thing is a "citizen" of our country or not, unjustifiable homicde of that living thing is still murder.

You seem to be saying the fetus is not a living thing, not a "citizen" as you described it. I say you are wrong. The fetus is a living thing; all it needs is time and noursihment to grow, just as a newborn does, outside of the womb.

It has a heart beat, tiny fingers and toes, and can feel both the comfort of the womb and the pain of being smashed in the skull and vacuumed out of it, if the so called "mother" decides to abort it.

Less than 1% of all rape victims ever get pregnant as a result of their horrific experience. My heart goes out to anyone who has been raped, and especially those very rare few who are impreganated in the process.

However, studies have consistently shown how abortion harms not only the living fetus in the womb, but the psyche of the woman who choses this particular "choice". I personally know women who have had abortions who are among the most troubled, conflicted women I know.

Any way, the bottom line in my response to you is that the fetus IS a living thing ('citizen or not'), and that being the case, we should not be legally permitted to kill it via abortion.

[PoorRider]

Happiness is not a right under our constitution. Only the "pursuit" of happiness is.

[A Navy Vet]

"I have a signed document to that effect, which is often called the primary law: the Founding Clause of the Declaration of Independence."

Interesting. My copy from the Heritage Foundation says, "...pursuit of happiness-"
Think I like yours better. Where do I get in line for my guaranteed happiness?

[Hajman]

I don't understand it in any context. You can't have "sort of" absolute rights. Either a thing is or it isn't.

Apparently your problem is understanding what these rights are in the first place.

If a fetus has absolute rights to life, then it bulldozes the mother's rights, if it doesn't, than the mother's rights are on the table, and lacking devine intervention, her rights are obviously quite a bit stronger than a fetus's rights. It is devine intervention, or sentimental intervention that supports the argument otherwise, no matter how well wrapped up in spurious claims of logic parsing.

The mother has no rights to be trumped by the unborn baby's right to life. If you think she does, then tell us what they are. Don't just say she does. What rights of the mother are specifically trampled by the unborn's right to life? Specifically.

-The Hajman-

[donh]

I just noticed something. Are you suggesting that the unborn baby is repugnant and scary to the girl?

Yes, and this is a common, thou not universal response. I saw it in my aunt many years ago. I am fascinated by your capacity to determine the depths and nature of the emotional responses of raped teenagers. I am also fascinated by the accusation of emotional sensationalism after all those pictures of aborted fetuses I have seen paraded around in front of clinics. At any rate, it begs the question. 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.

[Hajman]

Happiness is a right to the same extent that Life and Liberty are. I have a signed document to that effect, which is often called the primary law: the Founding Clause of the Declaration of Independence.

Really? My Declaration of Independence (the one that belongs to the good ol' USofA) says Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Where do you live?

-The Hajman-