I still rest my case that your bilogical sex does matter. If a woman gets pregnant, it does not affect your life and thye quality of your life in any way. You are still capable of working and doing whatever you want to do. A woman does not have that luxury when pregnant. You may view this stance selfish but I find it no more selfish than your own since you base yours on religious ideology.
The fundamental problem between our opinions is that you are willing to put the ambiguous rights of a potential human being before the rights of a human being who already exists, walks, talks, and participates in supporting this society; in other words, is not merely a potential member of society but more or less important pilar of our society. I, on the other hand, do the exact opposite. I don't see female homo sapiens primarily as birth factories and potential mothers but as women who have equal rights as
men. Women are primarily responsible for their own bodies and it is their own quality of life that matters to me the most, not life per se. Our bodies are potential mothers, yes, but only potential. There is no "social obligation" for women to make babies. Women are first and most importantly their own entities. After that and only after that -if they so *choose*- they can be mothers. Who are you to decide for women who do not want children? We don't live in the 1950s anymore but accidents do happen even if you took care of all the precautions. From my point of view this sounds very much like
condemnation, a punishment for something - having premarital sex, having sex in the first place, having sex in the purpose of pleasure and not reproduction, something else, Canada? I suggest you read the following, especially the latter part of the text. I feel it sums up nicely all the things I feel when you suggest a foetus's rights are more important than a woman's reproductive rights. (http://kupuramiekka.blogspot.com/2009/04/ideologioiden-tunnistaminen.html)
When you "defend foetuses rights", you are willing to put them before women's reproductive rights, that is, that a woman should not be allowed to decide when or if she wants to have children. Because like it or not, women work and being pregnant does interfere with that before or later and thus affects her ability to support herself. Let us also not forget that kids are not very cheap these days; who is to pay for all that? You? Women are not men's property anymore regardless that some men seem to find that so very unfair (a notion I cannot comprehend). Furthermore, not all women are married or even in a relationship; again, who would pay for the kids then?
Let us also imagine that your ideal world in which women have no reproductive rights was true. What do you suggest is done with all the children given up for adoption? Would you be willing to loosen the criteria set for adoptive parents, i.e. the psychological evaluation etc.?
You say you defend foetuses rights. Which rights are those and why are they to be defended? Feel free to elaborate the argument of "they have a right to live"? Why do they have a right to live if they are unwanted and why is this kind of life worthy of having? You also say that "[p]otential life is to be guarded" but you don't say why and more importantly, why it should be you who have no involvement with the foetus before or -and this is the significant part- after the birth? Also, what gives you the right to get involved with another person's physical decisions. Again, it is up to the woman; if she doesn't want to have an abortion she doesn't have to, no-one is forcing her. You, on the other hand, are forcing women who do not want to have the child to give birth. I see a problem right there, an ideologically based problem.
Let's think big. There are only so many people this planet can take and we are already pushing the limits and paying the price for that. Why burden the planet even further by babies their parents do not want? One could also argue whether it is ethical to have children at all. Let's face it: this world is fucked up. It does have its good features, yes, but more and more it is slipping into extremeties. Since the 20th century it has only been a matter of time before some lunatic with a red button at hand decides to launch a nuclear weapon or weapons, resulting in a nuclear winter.
I have to repeat myself: just because something is possible doesn't mean you have to do it? I could go outside right now and start stabbing people with a kitchen knife but I don't. I don't do this because I have no reason to do so. Similarly, if a woman feels
abortion to be something she's not willing to live with, that she rather has the baby and gives it up for adoption or has the baby and keeps it. But none of this is a plausible justification to take away women's right over their own bodies because there are women who can live with having had an abortion. There is to be an option available for those who choose to do so. It is up to the woman; which is the thing she weighs to be most important to her of all the options. But those options are to be there.
Now, as I said in the title, this will be my last posting on this matter for now. I think we have both noticed that we are on opposite sides on the abortion question. It is also quite certain that neither of us can agree with the other, nor -I suppose- was it the purpose of this debate in the first place. If you wish to comment on this matter further, so be it, but be noted that I will ignore that for the reasons stated in the previous part of this paragraph. I have no interest in continuing in what apparently is a pointless argument. This question has no right answer regardless of how much I would want it to be my point of view. However, it is no more right or wrong than yours.
I would also suggest that you check your own previous messages before claiming the other party for using personal insults. When you do this, it is very useful and polite to note which parts of the other's message you found to be personal insults and why. The following comments are your own and I could easily categorise them as personal insults:
"Seldom have I met more twisted and fundamentalist arguments than from you." (arguments from me -> me as a person)
"You should even yourself consider that you are NOT the only existing person on this planet - although it seems that you really think so, sadly enough." (It would be polite to point out what makes you think like this, and that you are not yourself guilty of the same attitude. I would say you do because you seem to think you have the right to impose your views -that is, that abortion should not be an option- on those who do not share this view.)
"I don't even bother to answer your silly insinuations concerning the ability of thinking amongst foetuses. Instead I laugh. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, it may be as wise or as silly as it may be." (First of all, I hope -seriously- you got a good laugh, that always makes everyone feel better. And thank you for repeating 'silly', a word I have not once used of you or your opinions. And why not bother? Contributes to the debate a whole lot more since I'm still not a mindreader.)
"It is full of personal attacks." (Again, when claiming pretty much anything, you should give some basis on it, examples for instance. No-one's proved to be a mindreader.) But since you probably decode personal attacks from this message, too, let me give you an example of what a personal attack by me really is: repeating "you have a right to your opinion" doesn't change the fact I said it *once* before you started the copy-paste exercise.
I cannot read your mind and language is always open for interpretation; I may read a sentence and automatically without thinking about it any further interpret it in a way different from what the writer meant. This same goes for the other way as well.
Please fell free to continue reading this blog for reasons I cannot fathom but if your intention is to convert instead of contribute to the discussion, please do not comment. That you can do in your own blog of which I stay away due to our ideological differences.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
Splenetic. Over and out.
