A Federal judge has dictated that the Plan B abortion drug be sold over-the-counter to any female regardless of age. The drug does several "emergency" interventions, including preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus wall, so that the fertilized egg cannot progress toward fruition: i.e. the fertilized egg is aborted. Obama apparently approved the previous age wall set at the age of 17, but now approves of no age limit at all. This is in line with the Left's idea that no parental oversight is required for young girls to have an abortion.
The privacy of the family and the dominance of parental rights over government dictates are no issues for the Left, who approve of human Rights only as they, the elite Leftists, deign to dole them out.
Obama was known to advocate positive rights as early as a year before his first election. Positive Rights are those rights which are positively approved by the government, and no other rights exist - direct contradiction to the constitution and Bill of Rights. For example, the First Amendment, freedom of speech, is cherished by Left (but only for themselves, and freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion), while the Left hates the Second Amendment and takes every opportunity to attempt to eliminate it, step by step.
11 comments:
At least they are not killing the microscopic fertilized egg, they are just denying it the use of their body. The egg is free to live out its life somewhere else.
Deist Woman,
Whether that sentence is an exercise in total absurdity or complete lack of empathy is impossible to determine. Possibly it is some form of analogy, although it fails that, too. Here's why:
The fertilized egg carries actual human life which is uniquely determined by the combination of DNA's it received. It is as alive as any human which is engaged in cell replication... which is all of us who made it past the abortionist killing, and continued to grow.
What Plan B does is to deny the essentials of life preserving maternal care and nutrition to the egg, so that the egg certainly cannot live past its present state. Denial of life preserving essentials is declared inhumane and illegal at most stages of human life. It is only at the stages of human life which are declared killable and useless and a bother which are devalued, currently, by the AtheoLeft and other Leftists who believe in their own personal superiority and personal eliteness and personal moral authority over other humans.
Those characteristics: their own personal superiority and personal eliteness and personal moral authority over other humans, are what make Atheists, AtheoLeftists and Leftists the devout enemies of moral culture and those who advocate for it. Their constant assault on all things decent is a firm indicator of that.
Who the enemies of decency devalue next will be denied now, and a surprise later, and defended as necessary due to some crisis.
"Denial of life preserving essentials is declared inhumane and illegal at most stages of human life."
I don't believe this is true but since you said "most stages" - at which stages do you believe it is not inhumane or illegal?
This conversation rings a bell:
It doesn't matter, it's only THEM being killed; that doesn't affect me.
Yet.
"Denial of life preserving essentials is declared inhumane and illegal at most stages of human life."
I don't believe this is true but since you said "most stages" - at which stages do you believe it is not inhumane or illegal?
The question with "Plan B" is who or what has the right to use another person's body?
Plan B does not violate the cell's right to life if it has one but merely deprives the cell of something—the use of the woman's body.
@Deist woman: your choice of the word 'merely' in reference to an event which is essential to the successful start of a human's life is... I want to call it 'disingenuous'. If I cut off your air by strangling you, you will die. At this stage of your development, I am 'merely' depriving you of the use of the atmosphere we all share in common.
Other humans in our society would call that murder. They might be right. It depends on the situation, of course. Circumstances might make it legal, even something I have to do to preserve my own life or the lives of my loved ones.
Nevertheless, I myself would never refer to the act as 'merely' cutting off your air. You're dead. I cannot undo it. Such an act requires extraordinary circumstances. There's nothing 'merely' about it.
The cutting off of a human shortly after his or her quickening from the mother's body is, I suppose, in some cases justified. So is the determination that one will use contraception that prevents the quickening from taking place at all.
Not all have that last choice, of course.
Just the same, killing a child at an even earlier stage of life - regardless of the means taken - for the sake of mere convenience is not only disgusting, it directly violates one of several things that make us Men and not animals.
I suspect from your choice of language that you are here not to ask an honest question, but rather ask a dishonest question. Your use of the word 'merely' shows that, whatever Stan says, you have already made up your mind. Stan is appealing to something most of us have, but you seem to lack.
You may not be a woman, you may never have been a mother, you may be both, for all I know. The internet is a strange place. I have known a comely young woman who, curiously, held Cthulhu in high esteem and referred to childbearing as 'hosting a parasite'. You may be one of those people. In which case, Stan is wasting his time even discussing his position.
You lack the faculties to appreciate that position. It's not because you are uneducated, or inexperienced or even because you are stupid - I am sure you are NONE of those things. It's because you want what you want and that's what really matters. You will let nothing - logic, appeal to common sense, or your possible obligations as a member of the human race - get in the way.
in some places in the world it is not illegal to assist suicide in cases of terminal illness.
The western culture is going inexorable in the direction of casual killing of humans in select categories, categories which are devalued by those who think they are superior and morally elite. This was already historical, in the major Atheist countries of the 20th century.
Deist woman,
Fact: the woman who denies "the use of her body" to her unborn progeny, has killed her progeny just as surely as denying life support to the disabled kills them.
That is a fact. What you want is for that fact to be considered moral. So for you, killing a certain category of viable humans is a fine decision, and moral since a woman's body is hers, and the egg/fetus/etc is killable within her domain. It is a moral decision to kill.
It is the domain which you define as sacrosanct, and under eugenics the domain expands as is necessary. It is historical.
"Those who deny history are doomed to repeat it".
Stan wakes up in the morning and finds himself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that Stan alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Does the violinist have the right to use your body?
@Aquim: setting up a forced dilemma, that would never, ever occur in real life - as opposed to the thousands of abortions performed each day - is silly.
You are attempting to force Stan into a corner;
(1) either he says 'yes' and you then claim abortion is exactly the same thing - and therefore he really has no argument against it.
or
(2) he says 'no' and you make him out to be either stupid, insane or a monster.
I'm not even going to say 'nice try' because it's not. You came here, copped a squat and left a wall of text in an attempt to create some kind of false analogy. Doesn't work here, never will. If it was an attempt to derail the conversation, ditto.
The whole thing is an exercise in fantasy from bridge to bilge, whereas abortion is real. But I think you have already made your position clear. Convenience is the Prime Directive.
Trouble is, whose convenience are we talking about?
The dichotomous analogy fails, first because it describes the equivalent of a rape which is not the subject at hand: Plan B is not specifically an anti-rape drug; it’s main purpose is to protect against the consequences of impromptu sexual activity after the fact, by killing the fertilized egg if there is one. Second, the woman’s body has not been co-opted by a group and forced into the situation in which she finds herself. Third, her body is performing its natural function of reproduction regarding a healthy progeny which she incurred as a result of sexual activity whether responsible or irresponsible. The Plan B interrupts the natural reproductive function with certain death for the progeny.
In the case of Plan B there is no kidnapping, there is no unnatural physical connection between subject and object, there is only the natural consequence which the woman has caused for herself. For the prophylactic use of Plan B, the woman is not the victim regardless of attempts to make her appear so.
Few women these days are unaware of the consequences of sexual activity, even “protected” sex which can fail. So the woman is responsible for the consequences she has incurred for herself. This in no way is represented by the false dichotomy which was presented.
If you wish to discuss the separate subjects of either rape or juvenile pregnancy, let’s do it. But let’s be up-front about the subject. Plan B is an abortion drug.
Finally, ethical false dilemmas such as the one concocted above are commonly used to entrap the unwary or ignorant into making the decision desired by the "ethicist" by making certain that only that decision is available in the question.
It is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.
Post a Comment