NationStates Jolt Archive

Ahem, pro-choicers, how is whatever line you draw in a child's development at which the fetus "becomes a person" not arbitrary? I've heard just about everything from "it can't survive on its own" to "it has no brainwaves" to "it's a parasite." Well, I'm pretty sure none of you would want to abort a two year old (if I'm wrong, I don't really want to know), so what makes a two year old so different from a fetus? Can it be physical dependence? Isn't a two year old dependent? Would a two year old survive if it was thrown into the street and left to fend for his/her self?

My argument has nothing to do with my religous beliefs or nonbeliefs at all. It has to do with where you draw the line. If it's drawn at an arbitrary position, or if you set criteria for "personhood," what's to stop you from saying that killing an infant is ok just because infants don't have the same level of awareness as you do?

If a two year old was left to fend for itself, it is possible for it to survive. It can walk, think, eat, drink, and breath all by itself. Now, it may be difficult for a two year old to survive entirely on it's own for any more than a week or a several days (depending if it can find water on it's own), but the toddler is still not automatically dependent on its parents/guardians, heck, even humans to survive. Ever heard of feral children?

Now, if you took a fetus and left it in the street it has no possibility to survive or develop into a complete human being. It is dead.

And that is the difference between infants and fetuses. Though the line may cross once the fetus can survive outside of the womb without leeching off another living being.

Could you elaborate. I dont say that procreation is the ONLY purpose of sex, but it is the primary one, and a consequence that people should be prepared to accept if they have it.

If it's not the only purpose then your point is moot. Good. I'm glad you concede.

If someone needed your kidney for transplant and could not live on anyone elses and you refused then you are in effect killing them.


No, I am not killing that person. His/her lack of a kidney is killing him/her. I am simply choosing to keep all MY kidneys intact, and into my body, as is my right.

Avalon: would you, or would you not, give you support to a law effectively allowing me to requisition the use of YOUR body and/or organs in order to save MY life without any regards to YOUR opinion? Would I be justified in DEMANDING that you get sliced open and that I have the RIGHT to have unrestricted use of your body as long as you would not die in the process?

The short answer is "no". The long answer is "hell no".


If someone is on a life support machine and will no longer nead it in 9 months time but needs it during all those 9 months and you turn it off you are killing them.


A life-support machine is NOT a human being. A machine doesn't mind being used for the exclusive benefit a living being.

A woman is NOT a machine. They never have been. They never will be. And it will NEVER be acceptable to treat them as such. Mark my words. I will defend them to death.


A woman aborting a child is killing it. No question
[/QUOTE]

A woman cannot abort a child. A woman can abort a fetus or an embryo.

That being said, a fetus forcing a woman a woman to relinquish her rights to dispose of her body as she sees fit is a parasite. No questions.

Could you elaborate. I dont say that procreation is the ONLY purpose of sex, but it is the primary one, and a consequence that people should be prepared to accept if they have it.
I set out to have sex all the time and getting my girlfriend pregnant has not ever been the primary purpose.
We both accept the consequences for our actions if she becomes pregnant. An emotionally upsetting abortion.

Ahem, pro-choicers, how is whatever line you draw in a child's development at which the fetus "becomes a person" not arbitrary? I've heard just about everything from "it can't survive on its own" to "it has no brainwaves" to "it's a parasite." Well, I'm pretty sure none of you would want to abort a two year old (if I'm wrong, I don't really want to know), so what makes a two year old so different from a fetus? Can it be physical dependence? Isn't a two year old dependent? Would a two year old survive if it was thrown into the street and left to fend for his/her self?

My argument has nothing to do with my religous beliefs or nonbeliefs at all. It has to do with where you draw the line. If it's drawn at an arbitrary position, or if you set criteria for "personhood," what's to stop you from saying that killing an infant is ok just because infants don't have the same level of awareness as you do?

How do you make the "arbitrary" distinctions between killing a 2 year old human and a 2 year old pig?

Or a 200 year old tree?

If a two year old was left to fend for itself, it is possible for it to survive. It can walk, think, eat, drink, and breath all by itself. Now, it may be difficult for a two year old to survive entirely on it's own for any more than a week or a several days (depending if it can find water on it's own), but the toddler is still not automatically dependent on its parents/guardians, heck, even humans to survive. Ever heard of feral children?

Now, if you took a fetus and left it in the street it has no possibility to survive or develop into a complete human being. It is dead.

And that is the difference between infants and fetuses. Though the line may cross once the fetus can survive outside of the womb without leeching off another living being.

But how does that justify killing it? Even if I were to concede that a new born baby could survive on its own (if we're talking after birth then I can use any example I want, maybe two years isn't the best I admit), I don't see the logical connection. If you had leukemia and I was the only compatable bone marrow donor, then you would be dependent on me for survival. Does that make it right for me to deny you a transplant? Of course not. If I did, surely that would be an immoral act?

A woman is NOT a machine. They never have been. They never will be. And it will NEVER be acceptable to treat them as such. Mark my words. I will defend them to death.


I train women with the same mindset to use firearms. Mark my words, I train them for free and finance the purchase of their firearms.

How do you make the "arbitrary" distinctions between killing a 2 year old human and a 2 year old pig?

Or a 200 year old tree?

Yes, I did mean a two year old human. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

But how does that justify killing it? Even if I were to concede that a new born baby could survive on its own (if we're talking after birth then I can use any example I want, maybe two years isn't the best I admit), I don't see the logical connection. If you had leukemia and I was the only compatable bone marrow donor, then you would be dependent on me for survival. Does that make it right for me to deny you a transplant? Of course not. If I did, surely that would be an immoral act?

You would say the state should force you to be a bone marrow donor against your will?

What then are you but a slave?

Ahem, pro-choicers, how is whatever line you draw in a child's development at which the fetus "becomes a person" not arbitrary? I've heard just about everything from "it can't survive on its own" to "it has no brainwaves" to "it's a parasite." Well, I'm pretty sure none of you would want to abort a two year old (if I'm wrong, I don't really want to know), so what makes a two year old so different from a fetus? Can it be physical dependence? Isn't a two year old dependent? Would a two year old survive if it was thrown into the street and left to fend for his/her self?

My argument has nothing to do with my religous beliefs or nonbeliefs at all. It has to do with where you draw the line. If it's drawn at an arbitrary position, or if you set criteria for "personhood," what's to stop you from saying that killing an infant is ok just because infants don't have the same level of awareness as you do?

Simple: a woman can refuse to care for a born child without having to kill that child. She just gives it into adoption, where it will (hopefully) find a loving parent to care for it.

But when a woman doesn't want a pregnancy, well, we don't have any alternative allowing us to let her refuse to give up her body for the benefit of the fetus AND save the fetus' life. As I said, as soon as such a procedure becomes possible, abortion becomes obsolete and must be replaced in all haste by said procedure.

My line is: if the fetus/child can be saved by means other than forcing the unwilling woman to care for it, then we use that option, not abortion. This includes unborn children who could be saved and grow up in an "artificial womb", as they call them.

But how does that justify killing it? Even if I were to concede that a new born baby could survive on its own (if we're talking after birth then I can use any example I want, maybe two years isn't the best I admit), I don't see the logical connection. If you had leukemia and I was the only compatable bone marrow donor, then you would be dependent on me for survival. Does that make it right for me to deny you a transplant? Of course not. If I did, surely that would be an immoral act?

Of COURSE you have the right to deny me a bone marrow transfer! It's your bloody body, it's your choice whether or not you decide to donate me your marrow.

In the same manner, it should be a woman's choice if she wants to donate her body's resources (nutrients, blood, anti-bodies, calcium...) to a fetus.

I seriously doubt you think it is always morally wrong to kill.

Is it morally wrong to kill trees? Chimpanzees? Pigs?

Humans, it is very wrong to kill humans. There are very few circumstances where it is right. Kill or be killed is the main one.


You missed the point. 90% of abortions are not of fetuses. They occur before the fetal stage.

But if left to itself will it reach the fetual stage? Since when do you have the right to stop it from doing so?


It ain't a person until it is a person. Once it is a person it has rights. Why should a potentiality have rights?

Because it is not our right to interfeare with it. Left to itself it can develop into a person. What is worth us stopping it from doing so. What is it that its existance threatens that makes us stop its exisance.


A pig or chimp could be smarter than result of the potential "person", is it okay to kill them?


Assuming we grant life on the basis of intellegence there. We dont.


Every pregnancy carries a certain risk to the life of the mother.

Risk only counts if it is certian that if the child lives then the mother will die


Every pregnancy carries a certain amount of risk to the health of the mother.

Risk of health to the mother is outweighed by the risk of death through abortion


You edit doesn't help you. You believe abortion is wrong even when the woman doesn't consent -- so you can't rely on the consent argument to prove abortion is wrong.

Consent is only one part of why abortion is wrong. Its also wrong because in pregnacy what is given up by the mother is less than what is given up by the child in abortion


Bullshit. Sex serves many biological purposes beyond procreation.

Agreed. But a consequence is procreation and people should be prepared to accept that.


Um. Anyone that is 89 is already a person. Thus, they have a right to life.

Stop doging the point. You said that most unborn zygotes dont live to be fetus's thus they dont desereve the right to be them. I said that most people also dont live to be 90, does that mean killing 89 year olds is justifiable because its likey the wont live longer anyway?


A zygote or embryo is a clump of cells. It is not a person. It does not have a right to life.

What part about being a person versus not being a person don't you get?

But left in its natural state it will become one, and we dont have any right to interfeare with that unless that being interfeares with our right to live.

Yes, I did mean a two year old human. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

Um. You didn't answer the questions.

Are you saying anything that is "human" has a invioable right to life and anything that isn't "human" does not?

Why isn't that arbitrary? How can you justify it?

I just thought of something. Another for Christians.
If life starts in the womb and the mother has a miscarriage, does the fetus go to hell since it wasn't baptized?

Humans, it is very wrong to kill humans. There are very few circumstances where it is right. Kill or be killed is the main one.


Going back to this, I ask again: Does your concession of risk to the mother's life apply only to physical problems, or would you accept psychological difficulties as grounds for abortion, too?

Of COURSE you have the right to deny me a bone marrow transfer! It's your bloody body, it's your choice whether or not you decide to donate me your marrow.

In the same manner, it should be a woman's choice if she wants to donate her body's resources (nutrients, blood, anti-bodies, calcium...) to a fetus.

If a person needs your bone marrow and for some unknown reason cannot suvive on anyone elses in the world and you know this person needs it and you can afford to have the transplant then you must do it. You must do everything you can to save a persons life if they need your help. Ultimately the time that you give up to have the transplant etc is not worth someone dieing over.

Going back to this, I ask again: Does your concession of risk to the mother's life apply only to physical problems, or would you accept psychological difficulties as grounds for abortion, too?

Difficult. If the psycological problems ultimately could lead her to die then yes. The lessening of her quality of life is not enough reason to deny someone else life at all

You would say the state should force you to be a bone marrow donor against your will?

What then are you but a slave?

I'm sorry, maybe that's a bad example. When considering abortion, the kind I'm referring to is a result of consensual sex, which takes into account the responsibility of pregnancy. When you're pregnant, you've created the situation, and the human life. I don't think it's morally justified for parents to kill their children if they are responsible for them.

I just thought of something. Another for Christians.
If life starts in the womb and the mother has a miscarriage, does the fetus go to hell since it wasn't baptized?

Baptism is not salvation. So no it doesnt go to hell.

Of COURSE you have the right to deny me a bone marrow transfer! It's your bloody body, it's your choice whether or not you decide to donate me your marrow.

In the same manner, it should be a woman's choice if she wants to donate her body's resources (nutrients, blood, anti-bodies, calcium...) to a fetus.

Maybe I have the right. But the question I asked was, is it moral?

Um. You didn't answer the questions.

Are you saying anything that is "human" has a invioable right to life and anything that isn't "human" does not?

Why isn't that arbitrary? How can you justify it?

I don't believe I said that. I do believe that a human being has an inviolable right to life. Don't you?

If a person needs your bone marrow and for some unknown reason cannot suvive on anyone elses in the world and you know this person needs it and you can afford to have the transplant then you must do it. You must do everything you can to save a persons life if they need your help. Ultimately the time that you give up to have the transplant etc is not worth someone dieing over.

Nope sorry but if I don't want to give my bone marrow I don't have to. There is nothing that says I am required to give organs or tissue/etc. to someone who needs a transplant in the law. Also I tend to side with the supreme court on this. There is no conclusive evidence for either side on wheter or not a fetus/embryo is a human so I'm not going to touch it. I'll stick with the right to do what I want with my body.

Humans may place other meanings on sex themselves but ultimately the biological reason for sex is to create a life. I am not against people putting other meanings on sex but by putting another meaning on it does not mean you can avoid the consequences.

Excellent, at least we agree on this.


If you roll a dice in a board game, no matter what number you want to win you must accept what happens to it as a result.

Life is not a board game, Avalon. And nowhere in life are you forced to accept anything. We human beings have a free will, remember. We are not helpless against the vicissitudes of destiny: we make choices everyday. And yes, pregnancy CAN happen as a consequence of having sexual relations. That does not mean it is wanted. That does not mean the woman has the must see it though the end. And if a woman takes the necessary precautions against pregnancy, such as the condom and the pill, but falls pregnant anyway, it's safe to say that she did NOT accept "being pregnant" as a consequence of having sex. Thus, if she so chooses, she can refuse to bend herself to that consequence.

Side note :everyday people shirk away from their responsibilities. You cannot force others to be responsible. All you can do is be responsible yourself and hope others catch on the example.


You dont just crush the dice if you get a numeber that you didnt like. By putting a diffrent meaning on it you do not absolve your self from the consequences. For example, if I steal a car and take it joy riding with a friend, crash the car and my friend dies, I cant be let off by saying "for me it was a fun thing to do, not something that would cause a car crash" .

But you can certainly not be presumed to have accepted the possible consequence of the death of your friend by stealing a car.

You would be guilty of theft. Not murder.

Just as a woman who has sex and falls pregnant accepted to have sex. Not becoming a mother.

If you had leukemia and I was the only compatable bone marrow donor, then you would be dependent on me for survival. Does that make it right for me to deny you a transplant? Of course not. If I did, surely that would be an immoral act?
Perhaps it would be morally wrong, what matters is whether or not it would be illegal, and it wouldnt be, which is as it should be. Many people think it is immoral to cheat at snakes and ladders, I happen to agree with those people, I also firmly believe that legal coercion should not be employed in order to force people to not cheat at snakes and ladders. Immoral and illegal are not synomonous, nor should they be.

I dont agree, and from what I can tell the majority of human beings are with me on this one.


At least I am.

He certainly is justified in trying to convince us than killing is not the right thing to do, but he has no right to force us to share his beliefs.

Otherwise, the vegetarians would have passed laws opposing the slaughter of our favorite bacon and beef producing animals long ago.

Humans, it is very wrong to kill humans. There are very few circumstances where it is right. Kill or be killed is the main one.

Why is it wrong to kill humans but not other things?

What counts as "human"?

But if left to itself will it reach the fetual stage? Since when do you have the right to stop it from doing so?

Again, you miss the point. You keep talking about fetuses when most abortions are of embryos or zygotes. You are simply using the wrong language.

Because it is not our right to interfeare with it. Left to itself it can develop into a person. What is worth us stopping it from doing so. What is it that its existance threatens that makes us stop its exisance.

1. Why is it not our right to interfere with a non-person? A non-person doesn't have rights yet.

2. You forget about the woman. Its existence threatens her life, health, economic status, and social status. Its existence threatens her personal liberty.

Assuming we grant life on the basis of intellegence there. We dont

On what grounds do we grant life then?

You are saying that a pig could be more like a person than a fetus, but it is still OK to kill the pig but not the fetus. Why?

Risk only counts if it is certian that if the child lives then the mother will die

Why?

Risk of death to person > death of non-person

Risk of health to the mother is outweighed by the risk of death through abortion

Why?

Risk of health to a person > risk of death to non-person

Consent is only one part of why abortion is wrong. Its also wrong because in pregnacy what is given up by the mother is less than what is given up by the child in abortion

So, you agree the consent argument is merely a smokescreen.

Agreed. But a consequence is procreation and people should be prepared to accept that.

A possible consequence of sex is procreation. It is not a certainty. To the contrary, it may be very, very unlikely.

Abortion is accepting a consequence of sex. It is a responsible choice.

Stop doging the point. You said that most unborn zygotes dont live to be fetus's thus they dont desereve the right to be them. I said that most people also dont live to be 90, does that mean killing 89 year olds is justifiable because its likey the wont live longer anyway?

I didn't dodge the point. You are dodging mine.

Anyone that is a person has a right to life. 89 year olds are persons.

Anyone that is not a person does not necessarily have a right to life. Fetuses, zygotes, and embryos are not persons.

(By the way, I never said anything about most unborn zygotes don't live to be fetuses so they don't deserve the right to be them. You made that up.)


But left in its natural state it will become one, and we dont have any right to interfeare with that unless that being interfeares with our right to live.

We have a right to control our own body. If that causes harm to a non-person, so be it.

If you had leukemia and I was the only compatable bone marrow donor, then you would be dependent on me for survival. Does that make it right for me to deny you a transplant? Of course not. If I did, surely that would be an immoral act?

It could be immoral according to your set of morals. But you would still have the right to refuse the transplant.

Or are you suggesting we pass laws allowing anyone to serve him/herself on your body for survival? I find the idea of being turned in an organ buffet very distasteful, thank you very much.

I react better to entreaty and appeal to my decency and ethics than to coercion.

It could be immoral according to your set of morals. But you would still have the right to refuse the transplant.

Or are you suggesting we pass laws allowing anyone to serve him/herself on your body for survival? I find the idea of being turned in an organ buffet very distasteful, thank you very much.

I react better to entreaty and appeal to my decency and ethics than to coercion.

Ok, I've admitted it earlier, this is a bad example. I apologize. :(

I train women with the same mindset to use firearms. Mark my words, I train them for free and finance the purchase of their firearms.

Mine was a comment that did not openly imply mortal threats those who might disagree, but rather in the sense that I would defend my position until my natural, and hopefully non-violent, death. :p

I consider myself lucky to be on the same side as those armed and determined amazons. :D

Life is not a board game, Avalon.

Its what we call a METAPHOR. Look it up.


And nowhere in life are you forced to accept anything. We human beings have a free will, remember. We are not helpless against the vicissitudes of destiny: we make choices everyday. And yes, pregnancy CAN happen as a consequence of having sexual relations. That does not mean it is wanted. That does not mean the woman has the must see it though the end. And if a woman takes the necessary precautions against pregnancy, such as the condom and the pill, but falls pregnant anyway, it's safe to say that she did NOT accept "being pregnant" as a consequence of having sex. Thus, if she so chooses, she can refuse to bend herself to that consequence.

Thats irrelevent. You may not consicously accept being pregnant as a consequence of sex but you have to accept it anyway because thats what can happen. You may not like it, you may not want it but those are not reasons to kill. Even if she uses contreception, there is no 100% effective preventative contricetpion (see earlier as to why the morning after pill is not preventative contreption). Not wanting a pregnacy is not sufficent grounds for ending it because ending it means ending a life, and a pregnacy is not a sufficent moral situation where you can end a life. A pregnancy where if not aborted the mothers life is at certian risk then abortion is acceptable since its kill or be killed.


Side note :everyday people shirk away from their responsibilities. You cannot force others to be responsible. All you can do is be responsible yourself and hope others catch on the example.

Everyone is forced to be responsable every day, by the law.


But you can certainly not be presumed to have accepted the possible consequence of the death of your friend by stealing a car.

You would be guilty of theft. Not murder.

If I joy rode around in it, broke the speed limit and drove genrally dangerously with my friend in it and then drove so dangerously that we had an acciednt and he died then yes, I would be responable for manslaugter.


Just as a woman who has sex and falls pregnant accepted to have sex. Not becoming a mother.

A woman who has sex has to accept the posibilty of becoming a mother. She can limit that posibility all she wants, but she will have to accept some level of possibility, seeing as that is a consequence of sex.

You would say the state should force you to be a bone marrow donor against your will?

What then are you but a slave?

And this is also very reminiscent of communism, except worse.

Because this time it is not only your personnal possessions that can be requisitioned and redistributed for the good of society, but your actual physical body.

A scary thought indeed.

And this is also very reminiscent of communism, except worse.

Because this time it is not only your personnal possessions that can be requisitioned and redistributed for the good of society, but your actual physical body.

A scary thought indeed.

As I've said, it was a poor analogy on my part, and I never said the the state should be able to do that, I only enquired after the morality of it. Pro-life != Communist. Can we move on?

If a person needs your bone marrow and for some unknown reason cannot suvive on anyone elses in the world and you know this person needs it and you can afford to have the transplant then you must do it. You must do everything you can to save a persons life if they need your help. Ultimately the time that you give up to have the transplant etc is not worth someone dieing over.

Very well, I have run out of patience for such an hopeless discussion.

So I could decide to chain you to a bed and use you as a renewable source of blood because it suits my needs?

I could dispose of you in any fashion that suited me as long as what I require of you is not worse than what I would be suffering without your assitance?

I could dig into your body and choose replacement parts for myself without even consulting you or needing your approval?


I, sir, am not so foolish as to let someone dispose of my body. I remain the only judge of what happens to it. I have the final word.

I refuse to be a slave to another being's right to life.

I consider you a complete and utter fool if you choose to relinquish your own body for the well-being of others.

I consider you dangerous if you try to force me and others to do as much.

Maybe I have the right. But the question I asked was, is it moral?

Whether it is moral or not is irrelevant. You have the right, because it's your body.

We're not discussing wheter or not abortion is immoral. We're discussion why it should not be criminalized.

You cannot pass a law for everything that is immoral. Immorality, for starters, differs from person to person, from culture to culture.

Even if you think adultery is immoral, does that mean you are justified in passing a law that prevents it? No. Morality and Legality are seprate, and should stay that way.

Again, you miss the point. You keep talking about fetuses when most abortions are of embryos or zygotes. You are simply using the wrong language.

Wrong langugage, but you can tell what I mean anyway


1. Why is it not our right to interfere with a non-person? A non-person doesn't have rights yet.

The burden of proof is on you. You have to prove why it is our right to interfeare. I say it isnt becase it will become a person and unless it is interfearing with any of our rights it does no wrong. I believe this logic comes from the old american liberal tradition "if it doesnt harm anyone then its ok"


2. You forget about the woman. Its existence threatens her life, health, economic status, and social status. Its existence threatens her personal liberty.

Unless it certianly threatens her life (IE unless you abort the embryo she WILL die) then it doesnt count. Economic status and social status are not rights. Health will heal. Personal liberties do not outweigh rights to life.


On what grounds do we grant life then?

You are saying that a pig could be more like a person than a fetus, but it is still OK to kill the pig but not the fetus. Why?

The pig is not sentient, nor will it ever become sentient


Risk of death to person > death of non-person

The only time it is ok to abort an embryo is when it is certian that if you dont then it will kill the mother. That is kill or be killed.


Risk of health to a person > risk of death to non-person

Not true. Health will heal ultimately. Death wont.


So, you agree the consent argument is merely a smokescreen.

No, I agree that its one argument ammoung many


A possible consequence of sex is procreation. It is not a certainty. To the contrary, it may be very, very unlikely.

But it is still possible. If you are unwilling to accept that posibility you shouldnt have sex. If you are raped you should give the child up for adoption.


Abortion is accepting a consequence of sex. It is a responsible choice.

Hardly. You are ending a life or cutting off a posibility of life.


(By the way, I never said anything about most unborn zygotes don't live to be fetuses so they don't deserve the right to be them. You made that up.).

It was a misunderstanding of an earlier post. Apologies.


We have a right to control our own body. If that causes harm to a non-person, so be it.

And women accept that if they have sex, there is a posibility that they give up this control. A very low possibility if they use contriception but still a posibility. If you are unwilling to weild this right then dont have sex.

So I could decide to chain you to a bed and use you as a renewable source of blood because it suits my needs?

If I am the only person in the world who can give you the blood that you need to survive then yes.


I could dispose of you in any fashion that suited me as long as what I require of you is not worse than what I would be suffering without your assitance?

Again, yes.


I could dig into your body and choose replacement parts for myself without even consulting you or needing your approval?

This is where you break down. A woman gives her aporval when she has sex. She accepts that there is the remotest possibility that she will have a child. No matter how small. If she cant accept that possibility, she shouldnt have sex.


I, sir, am not so foolish as to let someone dispose of my body. I remain the only judge of what happens to it. I have the final word.

I refuse to be a slave to another being's right to life.

Then dont have sex (if you are a woman)


I consider you a complete and utter fool if you choose to relinquish your own body for the well-being of others

So you consider women who have consentual sex fools?

We have a right to control our own body. If that causes harm to a non-person, so be it.

And even if it causes indirect harm to a real person, then so be it as well.

You can refuse that bone marrow transplant I so need. You have that right to keep your bone marrow intact, and your body does not have to be sliced open for my benefit.

If a person needs your bone marrow and for some unknown reason cannot suvive on anyone elses in the world and you know this person needs it and you can afford to have the transplant then you must do it. You must do everything you can to save a persons life if they need your help. Ultimately the time that you give up to have the transplant etc is not worth someone dieing over.

Nope, sorry that is absurd and, what is more, dangerous. Your line of reasoning would see the removal of all of the even most fundamental human rights.

The individual is supreme and doesn't need to help anyone. You can't force someone to undergo harm for any reason. What is more, you can't force someone to do anything to help anyone for any reason.

Therefore, a women is under no obligation to carry a child to term. She has sovereignty over her own body and can do anything she wishes with it. She is under no obligation to assist anyone, especially something not even born yet.

This is where you break down. A woman gives her aporval when she has sex. She accepts that there is the remotest possibility that she will have a child. No matter how small. If she cant accept that possibility, she shouldnt have sex.

Nonesense. Accepting the possibility is not approving anything. When you drive a car you accept the possibility of death but surely don't approve of it.

Your argument is further rubbish because of the fact that medical procedures mean that, if she wishes, there is not even the remotest of possibilities of having a child. Therefore under your own logic your argument fails.

Everyone is forced to be responsable every day, by the law.

This is the most stupid, false comment I've ever heard. A whole damn lot of people avoids their responsibilties. There are no laws against irresponsibility.

A law can only punish reprehensible bahaviour. It can never coerce. If I steal, I may be punished, but a law cannot prevent me from stealing in the first place.

Getting pregnant is NOT a reprehensible behaviour. Neither is having sex. Never. Ever. Period.

Don't confuse morality or ethics with legality.


A woman who has sex has to accept the posibilty of becoming a mother. She can limit that posibility all she wants, but she will have to accept some level of possibility, seeing as that is a consequence of sex.
Admitting something is a possibility can never be considered approving or accepting the responsibility for that possibility.

If I go take a walk late at night, even in a dangerous city, does not mean I accept and take full responsibility for the fact that I MAY, IF VERY UNLUCKY, AND EVEN THOUGH I TOOK ALL PRECAUTIONS TO AVOID IT get murdered or robbed. I have the right to take a walk without getting robbed or killed.

A woman HAS THE FUCKING RIGHT TO HAVE SEX. :headbang:

There. It has been said. That does not mean she has the obligation of getting pregnant.

This is where you break down. A woman gives her aporval when she has sex. She accepts that there is the remotest possibility that she will have a child. No matter how small. If she cant accept that possibility, she shouldnt have sex.


No, she does not.

A woman who accepts to kiss a guy doesn't give him license to rape her.

A woman who has sex does not give the fetus the right to use her body.

A woman HAS THE FUCKING RIGHT TO HAVE SEX. :headbang:



Indeed so. That's the entire idea of the sovereignty of the individual. In fact, I am a little disturbed by the medieval attitudes of some of the posters here. Women are not property and one cannot dictate what they can and can't do.

The claim that women who don't want to have children should be forced not to have sex is repulsive.

Then dont have sex (if you are a woman)


Funny how only women should not have sex.

That would be an awfully bigoted, sexist remark. I'm sure you typoed. :mad:


So you consider women who have consentual sex fools?

Absolutely not, because the act of having sex does not make you relinquish the right to decide what happens to your own body.

The burden of proof is on you.
You have that entirely backwards.

You have to prove why it is our right to interfeare.
No, the right to interfere or act in any way shape or form is presumed in free societies. That is what distinguishes them from 'not-free societies'.

I say it isnt becase it will become a person and unless it is interfearing with any of our rights it does no wrong.
In the first place a person has the right to control their body, and if they wish to not be pregnant and have a fetus inside them, then the fetus is interfering in their right. In the second place, you keep going on about potential (it will become a person). We do not treat things that will potentially be something as though it were that thing. 20 years ago G W Bush was potentially the President of the US and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. This did not give him any right whatsoever to give orders to the armed forces 20 years ago, or even to offer advice in an official capacity.

I believe this logic comes from the old american liberal tradition "if it doesnt harm anyone then its ok"
Except 'anyone' means a person and a fetus is not a person.

Unless it certianly threatens her life (IE unless you abort the embryo she WILL die) then it doesnt count. Economic status and social status are not rights. Health will heal. Personal liberties do not outweigh rights to life.
In no case is it possible to know that someone will die without an abortion until it is too late (ie they are dead). Every pregnancy presents a health risk that could be fatal to the pregnant person. We cannot know for certain what will happen in a particular case until it does.

The pig is not sentient, nor will it ever become sentient
I dont believe for a second that you can know that, whether you think you know it or not.

The only time it is ok to abort an embryo is when it is certian that if you dont then it will kill the mother. That is kill or be killed.
The only time it is certain is when the mother is dead already....many people might argue that at that point an abortion is somewhat pointless.

Not true. Health will heal ultimately. Death wont.
Untrue, I know people who have suffered effects to their health from pregnancy and so far as medical professions are concerned they will not ever be free from those effects.

But it is still possible. If you are unwilling to accept that posibility you shouldnt have sex. If you are raped you should give the child up for adoption.
Whether or not someone should do something (or not do something) isnt the issue. The issue is should the law force a person to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. I see no reason to believe it should.

And women accept that if they have sex, there is a posibility that they give up this control.
No they dont all accept that at all. Some might, but not all do.

A very low possibility if they use contriception but still a posibility. If you are unwilling to weild this right then dont have sex.
It isnt up to the law to tell competent adults when they can and cant have sex with other competent consenting adults. The act of having sex does not void the right a women or a man has to controlling their own bodily integrity.

Nonesense. Accepting the possibility is not approving anything. When you drive a car you accept the possibility of death but surely don't approve of it.

If you drive a car within the standard rules then yes, you are not accepting reponsablity of death. If however you drive dangerously and increase the possibiluy of your own death, its your own fault.


Your argument is further rubbish because of the fact that medical procedures mean that, if she wishes, there is not even the remotest of possibilities of having a child. Therefore under your own logic your argument fails.

If a woman or a man is medically sterilised then yes, she no longer has to accept the responablity of a child because she cannot have one. If a women can have one and has sex she does

So you consider women who have consentual sex fools?

Holy SHIT. This has to one of THE most disturbing things I've heard in a long while. When a woman consents to having sex it is NOT 'relinquishing their body for the well-being of others'. I mean... hell, I can't even SAY anything about that right now I'm so floored.

That... that is one very disturbed view of the world, women and human sexuality.

Holy SHIT. This has to one of THE most disturbing things I've heard in a long while. When a woman consents to having sex it is NOT 'relinquishing their body for the well-being of others'. I mean... hell, I can't even SAY anything about that right now I'm so floored.

That... that is one very disturbed view of the world, women and human sexuality.

I share your astonishment.

Edit: Funny how, again, only women seem to relinquish their rights to their own body, while males doesn't.

I am now utterly convinced Avalon isn't female.

This is the most stupid, false comment I've ever heard. A whole damn lot of people avoids their responsibilties. There are no laws against irresponsibility.

A law can only punish reprehensible bahaviour. It can never coerce. If I steal, I may be punished, but a law cannot prevent me from stealing in the first place.

Getting pregnant is NOT a reprehensible behaviour. Neither is having sex. Never. Ever. Period.

Don't confuse morality or ethics with legality.

A law that punishs irrisponsable behavior coerces against it by definiton. Getting pregnant is not reprehinable behavior I agree. However it is behaviour where you must accept the posibility of creating a life. Because that is what sex ultimatley does. You can put other meanings on it but they dont remove the consequences.


Admitting something is a possibility can never be considered approving or accepting the responsibility for that possibility.

If I go take a walk late at night, even in a dangerous city, does not mean I accept and take full responsibility for the fact that I MAY, IF VERY UNLUCKY, AND EVEN THOUGH I TOOK ALL PRECAUTIONS TO AVOID IT get murdered or robbed. I have the right to take a walk without getting robbed or killed.

But in that case the posibility isnt instiageted by you. Where as in sex it would be.


A woman HAS THE FUCKING RIGHT TO HAVE SEX. :headbang:

There. It has been said. That does not mean she has the obligation of getting pregnant.

She does not have a right to kill the embroyo if one comes about as a result of sex. The designated biological function of sex is to create a life. Many other reasons exist but none of them overshadow the creation of a life.

If you drive a car within the standard rules then yes, you are not accepting reponsablity of death.
There are no rules regarding mutually consential sex.

If a woman or a man is medically sterilised then yes, she no longer has to accept the responablity of a child because she cannot have one. If a women can have one and has sex she does
For what reason? Having an abortion is no different practically then being sterilised. In both cases birth is not possible.

I share your astonishment.

Edit: Funny how, again, only women seem to relinquish their rights to their own body, while males doesn't.

I am now utterly convinced Avalon isn't female.

Males relinqish their rights to run off and not care for the child. They have a right to care for it if they create it. Very few of them irritatingly take up this role. That doesnt make it right

She does not have a right to kill the embroyo if one comes about as a result of sex.
In fact she does because she has sovereignty over her own body and since the foetus is part of her body may terminate it as and when she wishes.


The designated biological function of sex is to create a life.
Even if this is true, so what? That's hardly a reason to restrict civil liberties.

For what reason? Having an abortion is no different practically then being sterilised. In both cases birth is not possible.

Being sterilised is prentative before sex. Abortion is preventative afterwards. In the case of sterising you are not ending a life that has begun.

Males relinqish their rights to run off and not care for the child. They have a right to care for it if they create it. Very few of them irritatingly take up this role. That doesnt make it right

This responcibilities only refers to people though, an unborn child is not a person.

Furthermore, the male has no right to demand the women have a child. She has ultimate sovereignty over her body, not him. We've progressed away from this backwards medieval idea of men owning women.

In fact she does because she has sovereignty over her own body and since the foetus is part of her body may terminate it as and when she wishes.

She does not have soveirnty over her own body that over-rides the right to life of the fetus


So what? That's hardly a reason to restrict civil liberties.

It is less restricting of the woman than it is of the fetus.

First my disclaimers: The thread caught my attention and I started reading it and then noticed there are 19 pages. I am not going through all of them right away so if I double up someone elses response I appologize. I did want to respond to this while my response was fresh on my mind.


your sperm cells are not alive.

# Living things are made of cells.
# Living things obtain and use energy.
# Living things grow and develop.
# Living things reproduce.
# Living things respond to their environment.
# Living things adapt to their environment.

sperm and egg alone do not fit these criteria, together they do.

Most people who say they are Pro-Life are actually Anti-Abortion. There is a diffrence. Smunkee (is it alright to shorten it like that?) has pointed out the criteria of life and I concur with it. Now if someone is truely Pro-life they are going to die. The reason is that in order to survive we must all destroy life, be it animal or plant life. This doesn't even take into account bacteria and viruses which are the most basic forms of life, but life none the less.

Therefore we must now focus in on what the true point of contention on the abortion debate must be; The destruction of a soul bearing (or senitent if you prefer) being.

Plants defantly are not sentient and I believe, PETA members aside, we can all agree that neither are animals. Thus the lost of their life is not an issue, so long as abuse is not part of the equation.

So the question then becomes, when does the cells go from simply being a collection of cells (which indeed have life but that's obiviously not the true issue) to being a sentient, soul bearing individual?

Furthering this a bit I think we can all also agree that once the baby is born and out in the world, it qualifies as such a being. The contraversey then becomes one of the transition point inside the womb.

This is the crux of the debate, whether most realize it or not.

Since there is no real way to measure such change, it all comes down to a matter of faith and opinion. This is why I am pro-choice. I cannot impose my opinion onto someone else. To do so would negate their freedom. The mother's is a known non-argued status. The fetus inside is effectively in flux.

Now along with this opinion of mine I also think that it is the mother and the mother alone that can determine that status of the child within. (Yes I know that I constantly refer to the fetus as if it were alive and sentient. That's because I believe it so. More on that later) If the child's mother has determined to bear the child through to birth, she believes it alive and thus anyone bringing harm to it is gulity of assult, both to the fetus and the mother.

I do believe that a fetus is a living being and thus needs to be saved. I will work with a mother to try to convince her to bear the child and give it up for adoption. I actually hope for medical technology to advance to a point that it will be easy enough to transfer a baby from a mother who doesn't want it to one who does. I will call anyone calling themselves pro-choice who actively tries to get a woman to have an abortion instead of adopting it out a hypocrite. I will also call any so called Pro-life person who murders abortion doctors and blows up bulidings a hypocrite as well.

Because we can no more determine that point where a fetus goes from life to sentient life than we can prove or disprove a Deity, we must make no laws about it and allow social preasures to do their work and for people to make their own decisions.

Again I don't know if these were brought up yet but I will leave you with these two things:



"Jewish law is quite clear in its statement that an embryo is not reckoned a viable living thing (in Hebrew, bar kayama) until thirty days after its birth. One is not allowed to observe the Laws of Mourning for an expelled fetus. As a matter of fact, these Laws are not applicable for a child who does not survive until his thirtieth day."

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Footnotes:

1. Exodus 21:22 Or she has a miscarriage

Being sterilised is prentative before sex. Abortion is preventative afterwards. In the case of sterising you are not ending a life that has begun.

Whether or not it is life is irrelevant. An E.coli bacterium cell is life but has no rights to life. Only people have right to life. Therefore yours is a false dichotomy.

This responcibilities only refers to people though, an unborn child is not a person.

Furthermore, the male has no right to demand the women have a child. She has ultimate sovereignty over her body, not him. We've progressed away from this backwards medieval idea of men owning women.

The men dont have that right. They dont need it. Its wrong to not have the child because it would end its possibiluty of life. Left to itself in its natural state (in the womb) it would develop into a life.

She does not have soveirnty over her own body that over-rides the right to life of the fetus
Rubbish. Your telling me that a person's sovereignty is extinguised by a not person?



It is less restricting of the woman than it is of the fetus.
Guess what. A foetus isn't a person. A foetus has no civil liberties whatsoever. A women does so, the intrinsic right to do what she wants to her own body. Like it or not, an unborn child during pregnency is part of her body.

But in that case the posibility isnt instiageted by you. Where as in sex it would be.

It is instigated by me because I go out to take a walk in a dangerous neighbourhood. I still have the right to take a walk without getting shot.

Likewise, and in fear of repeating myself a woman has the right to consent to sexual intercourse and she has the right to do so without the threat of being chained by an embryo, a foetus, or a child that needs to be reared for the next 20 years.

You are a sexist bigot and an hypocrite if you believe women's right to have sex should be restricted, while males can go around and fuck and impregnate whoever they want without ever facing responsibility.

In both cases, it it the choice of the man AND the woman wheter to accept the pregnancy and care for the child, or not.



She does not have a right to kill the embroyo if one comes about as a result of sex.

The embryo, likewise, DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF THE BODY OF THE MOTHER FOR ITS OWN CONVENIENCE. Notice the capitals: I cannot stress this enough. Whether the pregnancy is a result of sex or not is a non-issue. Especially if the woman and her partner used contraception as they should have if they didn't want a baby.


The designated biological function of sex is to create a life. Many other reasons exist but none of them overshadow the creation of a life


Utterly false. In human sexuality pretty much all other freaking reasons overshadow the creation of life.

The number of times human have sex for procreation is far smaller than the number of times human have sex for other reasons.

Its wrong to not have the child because it would end its possibiluty of life. Left to itself in its natural state (in the womb) it would develop into a life.

You aren't listening, are you? The individual is sovereign. The individual is under no responcibility to ensure that others are born. The individual does however have the right to do whatever the hell she wants to her own body.

Therefore she may terminate her pregency.

Left to itself in its natural state (in the womb) it would develop into a life.

This presuposes alot. There are plenty of situations where an embryo will not survive in th womb. To say that just because an embryo is fertilized means it will survive is rediculous.

In any society that has any claim to being a 'free society' everything is legal except those things which are made illegal for particular reasons that justify the use of coercive legislation.

That means that abortion should not be illegal unless making is illegal can be justified.


You must be a lawyer. You used 47 words and said nothing.

Males relinqish their rights to run off and not care for the child. They have a right to care for it if they create it. Very few of them irritatingly take up this role. That doesnt make it right

You're not proposing a law forcing males to be good fathers if their seed creates a child.

Females should have the same right to relinquish their rights of parenthood to run off if they so choose. Such a right means the foetus dies with our current technology. Sad.

A lot of living children die of starvation. That is even sadder. Yet I don't see you donating your body to be eaten, or dedicating your life to seeing them fed in order to save all those little africans. Would you force someone to take up that task? What would give you the right to demand that someone else make a slave of himself to ensure the survival of others? None.

You must be a lawyer. You used 47 words and said nothing.

If you don't have anything to contribute to the thread then don't bother posting garbage like this.

You must be a lawyer. You used 47 words and said nothing.

Not at all. What he said is the whole basis of the liberal democracy you live in.

A law that punishs irrisponsable behavior coerces against it by definiton. Getting pregnant is not reprehinable behavior I agree. However it is behaviour where you must accept the posibility of creating a life. Because that is what sex ultimatley does. You can put other meanings on it but they dont remove the consequences.
No one is suggesting that the possible consequences not occur or that they be 'not accepted'.

But in that case the posibility isnt instiageted by you. Where as in sex it would be.
A person who chooses to go for a walk thus making something possible, is not instigating the act of going for a walk that makes it possible?! Your posts are becoming increasingly bizaare.

She does not have a right to kill the embroyo if one comes about as a result of sex.
Yes she does in many cases.

The designated biological function of sex is to create a life. Many other reasons exist but none of them overshadow the creation of a life.
I have no idea what you imagine 'designated biological function' is. What I do know is that the function of sexuality in human beings is not limited to procreation. We know this as a matter of empiracal fact. Human females are sexually receptive when they are not fertile. If the only purpose/function of sexuality in humans were conception, human females would only be sexually receptive when they were fertile. That isnt the case (as has been pointed out to you more than once in this thread). Say it as many times as you like, it wont make it true, but given that people have pointed out your error to you, restating this clearly erroneous assertion very well might convince people you have no clue what you are on about and either cannot or will not consider the issue logically.

Only a person has the right to life.

A person in being is, according to R v Hutty:

`child should have an existence separate from and independent of its mother, and that occurs when the child is fully extruded from the mother’s body and is living by virtue of the functioning of its own organs.’

Unborn children don't fit that description. Therefore they aren't people. Therefore they have no rights.

Even if they did (to entertain an academic thought) they would still be part of the women and therefore part of her body and therefore she could dispose of it as and when she wished.

But they aren't even people, which makes this case even more clear cut. A women has every legal right to terminate her pregnancy.

Case closed.

Case closed.

At long fucking last :rolleyes:

What we need is a medical procedure that removes the embryo/fetus/non-person without killing it, so women can give it up for adoption 7 or 8 months earlier than usual. That should make everybody happy. Of course, I can't guarantee a clump of cells are gonna get adopted, but that's no longer the woman's problem, now, is it?

First of all, there's the back-alley argument. You can't possibly say that it's better for women to have an abortion and become septicemic at the same time, than to just have the abortion and walk away alive and well themselves. Even if you count a fetus as a person, it's still two lives lost versus one.

Secondly, even if you count a fetus as a person, lets consider than the actual abortion doesn't kill it. It's the subsequent separation from the mother. In essence, outlawing abortion is requiring the mother to donate her uterus to the fetus. No person is required to donate any organ to any other person, even if they are related, and even if it's known that the donatee will die without it. And if someone tried to institute a law saying so, there would be virtually no support for it. Why should the law be altered only for pregnant women with regards to their uteruses?

Thirdly, I can put together a not-as-strong argument for why the fetus or embryo ISN'T a person. The fact is, during the period wherein abortions are legal, it's not viable outside the womb (the whole point, in fact), its bodily functions aren't even controlled by its own brain, and it's visually indistinguishable as human for much of the time. "Clump of cells" is an overused and fairly meaningless phrase, but it pretty describes my stance toward a first-trimester embryo.

Personally, I wouldn't get an abortion and I wouldn't put myself in a position to want one. I know how to use a condom, though I haven't had an occasion yet. However, it's not my place to tell other people what to do in that arena.

What we need is a medical procedure that removes the embryo/fetus/non-person without killing it, so women can give it up for adoption 7 or 8 months earlier than usual. That should make everybody happy. Of course, I can't guarantee a clump of cells are gonna get adopted, but that's no longer the woman's problem, now, is it?

HEY! I was just thinking that.

HEY! I was just thinking that.

Great minds think alike. ;)

What we need is a medical procedure that removes the embryo/fetus/non-person without killing it, so women can give it up for adoption 7 or 8 months earlier than usual. That should make everybody happy. Of course, I can't guarantee a clump of cells are gonna get adopted, but that's no longer the woman's problem, now, is it?

Of course the woman would have to consent to such a procedure. She may prefer to terminate her pregnency rather than "transplant" it.

What we need is a medical procedure that removes the embryo/fetus/non-person without killing it, so women can give it up for adoption 7 or 8 months earlier than usual. That should make everybody happy. Of course, I can't guarantee a clump of cells are gonna get adopted, but that's no longer the woman's problem, now, is it?

Which is something I mentionned many times in the last 20 pages.

As for whether or not the clumps of cell gets adopted: of course they will. All those pro-lifers will of course generously offer themselves to take care of those poor little clum...children. :rolleyes:

All those pro-lifers will of course generously offer themselves to take care of those poor little clum...children. :rolleyes:

Adopt an amoeba day. No, the "pro-lifers" would much rather maintain their hypocritical self-righteous indignation.

Of course the woman would have to consent to such a procedure. She may prefer to terminate her pregnency rather than "transplant" it.

Sure, but anti-abortionists could make it so that the transplant is legal while termination isn't. With the DON'T KILL TEH BAYBEES stuff. Then a woman can choose between a back-alley abortion or a safe adortion. Aboption. Whatever.

A little harsh? Yes, but definitely a step-up from back-alley abortion vs. carrying to term.


Which is something I mentionned many times in the last 20 pages.

As for whether or not the clumps of cell gets adopted: of course they will. All those pro-lifers will of course generously offer themselves to take care of those poor little clum...children. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I joined the thread just now and was intimidated by the page count. But yes, I'm sure pro-lifers would make sure all those poor abandoned persons got good homes.

Sure, but anti-abortionists could make it so that the transplant is legal while termination isn't. With the DON'T KILL TEH BAYBEES stuff. Then a woman can choose between a back-alley abortion or a safe adortion. Aboption. Whatever.


Apobtion. I like it, it has a nice ring to it. :D

Sure, but anti-abortionists could make it so that the transplant is legal while termination isn't. With the DON'T KILL TEH BAYBEES stuff. Then a woman can choose between a back-alley abortion or a safe adortion. Aboption. Whatever.

A little harsh? Yes, but definitely a step-up from back-alley abortion vs. carrying to term.

We take very dangerous steps when we think of compromising with those who would presume to extinguish civil rights.

If you don't have anything to contribute to the thread then don't bother posting garbage like this.

Not at all. What he said is the whole basis of the liberal democracy you live in.

Wait a minute. I make that whole big logical arguement and this was all you could respond to? Where you that blown away by it or did you two just respond to the shorter first and are even now typing and pecking away at my points?

Wait a minute. I make that whole big logical arguement and this was all you could respond to? Where you that blown away by it or did you two just respond to the shorter first and are even now typing and pecking away at my points?

You actually made points? That's news to me.

Wait a minute. I make that whole big logical arguement and this was all you could respond to? Where you that blown away by it or did you two just respond to the shorter first and are even now typing and pecking away at my points?


-_-'


This is sarcasm, right?

Wait a minute. I make that whole big logical arguement and this was all you could respond to? Where you that blown away by it or did you two just respond to the shorter first and are even now typing and pecking away at my points?

Bad troll bad :rolleyes:

We take very dangerous steps when we think of compromising with those who would presume to extinguish civil rights.

Ooooh, I love that. Might have to quote you in my personal journal.

I don't know where you're typing from, but, where I am, "aboption" would be a gain in civil rights, not a loss. I wouldn't be compromising so much as taking a step in the direction of more freedom.

And, of course, as soon as the issue of abortion comes up in the Queendom of Erisianna, it'll be *immediately* legalized.

Most of the cells in your body have mutated by now. Some human beings are made up of two very separate sets of DNA - from before birth. This is because two embryos can fuse into one, and a person with two separate sets of DNA can be born.

Sorry, I can't even hit the ol' "I believe button" on this one. could you back this one up somehow?

You know what amuses me - certain people won't admit that their SOLE backing for 'right to life' is their faith. Nothing, nothing can shake their belief that it's wrong. No scientific evidence. No logic. Yet they enter into discussion and pretend like they have scientific reasons, but they are being intellectually dishonest. They know they're being dishonest. We know they're being dishonest. And in all of this, there's that little commandment, thou shalt not lie. I guess it only applies when you want it to. Let's talk about evolution next and we can hear about your objection to evolution is scientific too. Bizarre.

You actually made points? That's news to me.
Scroll further up on page 21. I made a whole lot of them. At least have the decency to pick them apart.


-_-'


This is sarcasm, right?

Well that later half was. But I was seriously blown away that they responded to the slightly scarstice and (obviously failed) attempted humor, but not the actual post dealing with the debate.

Bad troll bad
Hey now I save my trolling for the adult chat rooms....er...um...ignore that:rolleyes:

Sorry, I can't even hit the ol' "I believe button" on this one. could you back this one up somehow?

Its called a chimera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)).

You know what amuses me - certain people won't admit that their SOLE backing for 'right to life' is their faith. Nothing, nothing can shake their belief that it's wrong. No scientific evidence. No logic. Yet they enter into discussion and pretend like they have scientific reasons, but they are being intellectually dishonest. They know they're being dishonest. We know they're being dishonest. And in all of this, there's that little commandment, thou shalt not lie. I guess it only applies when you want it to. Let's talk about evolution next and we can hear about your objection to evolution is scientific too. Bizarre.

Now, you're not talking about someone we know, do you? :p

Certainly it cannot be someone who posted in this thread...:rolleyes:

Sorry, I can't even hit the ol' "I believe button" on this one. could you back this one up somehow?

Hmmm... someone is about to get educated about genetics. *pops popcorn*

I have just started trying to follow the debate here.... for the benefit of all can someone kind of summerize the debate to date? I think there are good arguments on both sides of the issue (and some of you are just way way way out there, but that is your perogative).

My view on the issue is pretty simple (and most likely already stated).
First... my religion (or church how ever you want to look at it) says having an abortion is wrong. You don't want to have a child... don't have sex. Very simple concept.

I do not agree with abortion. If for some reason you happen to get pregnant I feel the child should be carried to term. If you do not want the child, adoption is a good option. There are many couples that can not have thier own child and will be happy to raise yours. That being said, I do have an exception to my belief. If the mothers life is at risk... I'm sorry Jr. but you have to go. I'll morn the death of a child, but if I have to chose between a mother and her unborn childs life, I will choose the mother.

Second.... I am Pro-Choice. Just because I my religious belief says it is wrong to have an abortion does not mean everyone belives like I do. I can not tell you what to do or not to do with your body. A woman has the right to choose her course of action. Again... there is an exception. I do not think the Bible tells us at what point a 'life' begins, there for it I leave it up to science and doctors to make that determination. Though, once it has been determined that at certain point of development a fetus is a seperat 'life' it is too late to have an abortion and such an action should be illiegal (first exception applies here too... sorry Jr.).

My OPINION is: The point of development that 'life' begins is when the fetus has developed its own heart. I don't know when that is... not a medical doctor... but that is my OPINION when a 'life' is its own.

what the fuck
what the fuck
what the fuck
what the fuck
why cant people leave moral decisions to individuals? I for one dont give a fuck what any of you think about abortion or fetuses. To be honest, and I hate being honest, honestly dont give a fuck. the only time another person besides the mother should have a say is when its the father. so shut the fuck up. i dont care what your stance is. everyone.

Scroll further up on page 21. I made a whole lot of them. At least have the decency to pick them apart.


You honestly expect me to waste my time dismantling your religion-based arguments which use such whimsical and utterly subjective concepts as "souls"?

The unborn child at any stage is part of the women, it is part of her body. This doesn’t end till birth. The women has an intrinsic, unalienable right to do whatever she wants to her own body. If that harms something not even born it is of no consequence. It’s her body, she may do with it what she wants. If a person is under no obligation to assist another person she certainly doesn’t need to assist an unborn child (which under the legal definition I posted above is not a person).

Its called a chimera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)).


How very interesting. Thank you. This is fascanating. Now you haveing me thiking of new arguments to other threads. :)

And in its natural state it will be reciving that input.

Irrelevant. We remove things from their natural states because they are harming us all the time.

By burning lumber headed to a construction site you have burnt wood
Giving candy to a child you have fed a human
Helping a 20 year old woman across the street has helped a human

You are arguing somthing that changes with time. But it does not. It possess all the qualities of a life already. By arguing that by becoming dependet on something else to live, it no longer is alive is the same as arguing that a person on a life support machine is no longer alive.

(a) No, it does not possess all the qualities of life already - at least not in the case of most elective abortions. It cannot sense and respond to stimuli as an entity, thus it is missing one of the requirements. Up until it has a bloodstream, it does not obtain nutrients or excrete as an entity either, so, at that point, it is missing three of the requirements. Now, you may argue that the biological requirements for life are incorrect, but you'll end up with all sorts of things that you will have to deem as being "alive" that are, in fact, not.

(b) You are arguing with something I never said - ie. that it being dependent on another means that it is not alive. A parasite depends upon another to live, but is still alive. However, it, in and of itself, meets all the requirements of life.

(c) It is you who stated that an embryo is a person because it will become a person. You argued that there was a change, but that the change is unimportant due to potentiality. The same argument could be made in each of the above examples. The lumber had the potential to become a house. The child has the potential to become an adult. The young woman has the potential to become an old lady. They are not those things yet. And, many would argue (and your own arguments suggest), the embryo/early fetus is not yet a human person, it simply has the potential to be one.

Because in its natural state (which is inside a womens body) it will develop into a human life. Skin cells in there natural state will remain skin cells and will not develop into anything else. Taking skin cells into a lab and cloning them is not in their natural state, so dont come that arguement

You keep talking about this "natural state" thing as if it is an absolute....

You honestly expect me to waste my time dismantling your religion-based arguments which use such whimsical and utterly subjective concepts as "souls"?

You very obiviously did not read the entire thing. I'm willing to bet you saw the word "souls" and gave up right there. If you read the whole thing you'd find that I have essentially supported the Pro-choice side most whole heartedly and even included a bible referance (better than the Ecclesiasties one) as well as a quote by a major religious leader that both go far in supporting the Pro-choice position.

You very obiviously did not read the entire thing. I'm willing to bet you saw the word "souls" and gave up right there. If you read the whole thing you'd find that I have essentially supported the Pro-choice side most whole heartedly and even included a bible referance (better than the Ecclesiasties one) as well as a quote by a major religious leader that both go far in supporting the Pro-choice position.

Well, if you support the choice of a woman to determine the fate of her own body then there isn't even a need for me to address your post.

My understanding is the brain is fully developed and functioning at 12 weeks.

This is very, very much untrue. Now, the brain is developed to the point that it provides reflexive motion and some basic control, but development still has a very long way to go. There is no evidence that the higher-order functions of the brain are anywhere near developed at this point. Also, recent studies have suggested that it is impossible for a fetus to feel pain until at least 20 weeks (when elective abortions generally aren't allowed anyways....)

At 7 weeks I would consider the fetus a child.
Facial features are visible, including a mouth and tongue. The eyes have a retina and lens. The major muscle system is developed, and the unborn child practices moving. The child has its own blood type, distinct from the mother's. The liver now instead of the yolk sac produces these blood cells.

Your source is in error, unless all of the embryology texts I have seen are in error. The embryo (it is not even a fetus at this point) cannot "practice moving" at 7 weeks, as the nervous system is not yet developed enough to do so.

If you value life the idea of abortion has to be difficult.
But who is going to draw the line and where. Seems many people believe 9 months, yet children are born as young as 23 weeks and live.

Where are these mythical "many people". Just about every person who is pro-choice supports a cut-off on any elective abortions at or before 6 months.

I would have to say for me to be comfortable after the first trimester then abortions should not be allowed, unless there are circumstances that could cause harm to the child or mother. Those circumstances could be psychological as well.

Sounds pretty much like the wording of Roe v. Wade.

This one I am sure I will take some heat for but that is ok.
Children living at home should have parent’s approval to have an abortion if they are under 18. That child can't have any elective medical procedure with out parental approval and an abortion is a medical procedure last time I checked.

What if that child was raped by her own father and he is the father of her child? Should she really have to get his approval? What if she knows her parents will beat her/kick her out of the house if they know she is pregnant? Should she have to ask their approval?

There is a reason why the courts have continually held that any parental consent law must provide a way for the minor to appeal to the courts for the authority to make the decision on her own...

I'm sorry, I don't like abortion, but I would suggest my wife seek medical attention if she wanted to have a funeral for a miscarriage.
why? as soon as these women found out they were pregnant, that was thier child, if I had a miscarriage I would be devastated. Saying that a woman who has emotional distress after having a miscarriage is crazy is very cruel. :( I really expected more of you Jocabia:mad:

This one I am sure I will take some heat for but that is ok.
Children living at home should have parent’s approval to have an abortion if they are under 18. That child can't have any elective medical procedure with out parental approval and an abortion is a medical procedure last time I checked.

What if that child was raped by her own father and he is the father of her child? Should she really have to get his approval? What if she knows her parents will beat her/kick her out of the house if they know she is pregnant? Should she have to ask their approval?


The parental approval thing makes no sense to me. If a person isn't considered competent by law to decide on a medical procedure, she certainly isn't fit to birth and raise a child.

And, many would argue (and your own arguments suggest), the embryo/early fetus is not yet a human person, it simply has the potential to be one

And what right do we have to stop this potential? Only when it interfears with other rights. If it doesnt harm you, do it. If the existance of the embryo does not infringe on the mothers right to life then it must be kept alive because the posibility of its life must be preserved. To those who say its posibility of life is not life enough, let me put a metaphor to you. A person is on a life support machine. In 9 months time that persons body will have healled enough for him to support himself again, but in the mean time he cannot live without the machine. I he for those nine months not a person, and thus killing him would be morrally ok?

Sorry, I can't even hit the ol' "I believe button" on this one. could you back this one up somehow?

Wikipedia isn't the best source in the world, but I can't really post up genetics texts or papers, so it'll have to do for now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29

Ok, looks like someone else has addressed it, but I don't want you to think I was ignoring you. =)

Therefore we must now focus in on what the true point of contention on the abortion debate must be; The destruction of a soul bearing (or senitent if you prefer) being.

Plants defantly are not sentient and I believe, PETA members aside, we can all agree that neither are animals. Thus the lost of their life is not an issue, so long as abuse is not part of the equation.

So the question then becomes, when does the cells go from simply being a collection of cells (which indeed have life but that's obiviously not the true issue) to being a sentient, soul bearing individual?

Furthering this a bit I think we can all also agree that once the baby is born and out in the world, it qualifies as such a being. The contraversey then becomes one of the transition point inside the womb.

This is the crux of the debate, whether most realize it or not.

Since there is no real way to measure such change, it all comes down to a matter of faith and opinion. This is why I am pro-choice. I cannot impose my opinion onto someone else. To do so would negate their freedom. The mother's is a known non-argued status. The fetus inside is effectively in flux.


The problem is that we know that it does develop a sentientce and a being, but we dont know when. More to the point, it is developing into one. As long as that development does not threaten the mothers life, we have no business threatening its posibilty to live. And ultimately since we cannot determine when it is alive, but we do know that it does become alive eventually, the only logical course is to not allow it to be aborted since we dont know when it is killing and when it isnt

And what right do we have to stop this potential? Only when it interfears with other rights. If it doesnt harm you, do it. If the existance of the embryo does not infringe on the mothers right to life then it must be kept alive because the posibility of its life must be preserved. To those who say its posibility of life is not life enough, let me put a metaphor to you. A person is on a life support machine. In 9 months time that persons body will have healled enough for him to support himself again, but in the mean time he cannot live without the machine. I he for those nine months not a person, and thus killing him would be morrally ok?

A person in life support doesn't have the "potential" to become a person, he is a person.

What if that child was raped by her own father and he is the father of her child? Should she really have to get his approval? What if she knows her parents will beat her/kick her out of the house if they know she is pregnant? Should she have to ask their approval?

There is a reason why the courts have continually held that any parental consent law must provide a way for the minor to appeal to the courts for the authority to make the decision on her own...

First off all parental permission is not solely on the father. Thus in your example the mother most certainally may give permission. Now a good counter arguement might be that the mother would also be covering up for the father. That has certainally been seen before. Usually if such a case is discovered the girl is turned over to guardians and they can make such a decision. Of course the younger the child the more likely the court itself would order an abortion. To have a child at such a young age could be physically detremental. Rape, incestual or not, should also be an exception to the rule. Plus if the doctor informs the parents, or goes to, there is a better chance that it will be found out what the father did.

why? as soon as these women found out they were pregnant, that was thier child, if I had a miscarriage I would be devastated. Saying that a woman who has emotional distress after having a miscarriage is crazy is very cruel. :( I really expected more of you Jocabia:mad:

I don't think he was saying that it was crazy to be emotionally distressed - just to go so far as to have a funeral. People are emotionally distressed by many things, but we don't have funerals for all of them. Most people think it is either silly or "cute" when a child wants to have a funeral for a pet.

Women will mourn the fact that they were looking forward to a child and never got to have one. It doesn't mean that they should hold a funeral for that lost potential.


And what right do we have to stop this potential? Only when it interfears with other rights.

....which it does. A pregnancy is harmful to the woman. Carrying it to term will produce irreversible changes in her body. It will increase her risk of diabetes, osteoporosis, and other debilitating problems later on in life. Carrying a pregnancy that she does not want is a cause of severe mental stress. Women can and do die in childbirth, or from complications of a pregnancy.

I'm not saying that these are necessarily good reasons not to have a child. I know that all of these things are true, and yet I still intend to have children at some point in my life. However, it is my choice to take on such risks. I will do it willingly. Thus, none of my rights will be removed as I am going into it with open eyes and a willingness to take on the risks.

If it doesnt harm you, do it. If the existance of the embryo does not infringe on the mothers right to life then it must be kept alive because the posibility of its life must be preserved. To those who say its posibility of life is not life enough, let me put a metaphor to you. A person is on a life support machine. In 9 months time that persons body will have healled enough for him to support himself again, but in the mean time he cannot live without the machine. I he for those nine months not a person, and thus killing him would be morrally ok?

Not a good example. You are talking about someone who is already completely a person - and someone who is not dependent upon the body of another for his nourishment.

A good example would be the ones I have already used: If you dig up a seed, have you cut down a tree? If you cut a bud before it develops, have you removed a flower?

Some of us place a moral importance on the potentiality of the embryo. For that reason, many of us would never consider abortion. However, one cannot make the argument that you are attempting, which is essentially, "It will one day be a human person, therefore we should give it all the rights thereof right now." It is exactly like saying, "A child will one day be an adult, therefore they should be able to vote."

And what right do we have to stop this potential? Only when it interfears with other rights. If it doesnt harm you, do it. If the existance of the embryo does not infringe on the mothers right to life then it must be kept alive because the posibility of its life must be preserved. To those who say its posibility of life is not life enough, let me put a metaphor to you. A person is on a life support machine. In 9 months time that persons body will have healled enough for him to support himself again, but in the mean time he cannot live without the machine. I he for those nine months not a person, and thus killing him would be morrally ok?

Every overy has the potential to join with a sperm and eventually become human, should we force a girl to have sex as soon as she starts her period? Every sperm ejaculated has the potential to join with an egg and eventually become human, should we force every teenage boy to collect and freeze sperm.

Here is another metaphore: Suppose we have a person that requires a kidney (you have two) or liver (you can take part of a liver) transplant to survive. Should we legally require a person to donate that organ to save a patient's life? Why or why not? Is it morally ok for that person to say, "I do not want my organs used, even if there is no danger to me."

....which it does. A pregnancy is harmful to the woman. Carrying it to term will produce irreversible changes in her body. It will increase her risk of diabetes, osteoporosis, and other debilitating problems later on in life. Carrying a pregnancy that she does not want is a cause of severe mental stress. Women can and do die in childbirth, or from complications of a pregnancy.

I'm not saying that these are necessarily good reasons not to have a child. I know that all of these things are true, and yet I still intend to have children at some point in my life. However, it is my choice to take on such risks. I will do it willingly. Thus, none of my rights will be removed as I am going into it with open eyes and a willingness to take on the risks.

However the infringement of the rights on the part of the woman (risk of disease, periods of bad health, pain etc) are not infringements on the right to life of that woman. You infringe on the right to life of the embryo if you abort it. If the embryo's existance means the woman will die then it is justifable. Untill you prove that the embryo is breaching the womans right to life as much as the abortion breaches its right to life then it becomes justifable (kill or be killed)


Not a good example. You are talking about someone who is already completely a person - and someone who is not dependent upon the body of another for his nourishment.

A good example would be the ones I have already used: If you dig up a seed, have you cut down a tree? If you cut a bud before it develops, have you removed a flower?

Some of us place a moral importance on the potentiality of the embryo. For that reason, many of us would never consider abortion. However, one cannot make the argument that you are attempting, which is essentially, "It will one day be a human person, therefore we should give it all the rights thereof right now." It is exactly like saying, "A child will one day be an adult, therefore they should be able to vote."

No it should not have all rights because rights are based on capacity. The right to vote is based on the capacity to make an informed decis. Children cannot do that. However the right to life is based on the fact that they are alive. An embryo is alive. It may not be a 'person' but it is alive. And it is developing into a person. So the right to life applies. The embryo may be a parasite but parasites are still living things. Right to life is given to all living humans

And what right do we have to stop this potential?
'We' collectively dont have any right, a pregnant woman has the rights granted to her by the nation state in which she resides, or in some cases, whatever rights of other nation states that are accessable to her.

Only when it interfears with other rights.
For instance stealing someone else's property to fund it or forcing someone at gunpoint to perform the proceedure? No argument there, such rights as could be infringed are protected under law, whatever is not protected under law, is not a right. So I dont see the problem.

If it doesnt harm you, do it. If the existance of the embryo does not infringe on the mothers right to life then it must be kept alive because the posibility of its life must be preserved.
Pregnant women have rights other than the right to not have their lives ended. As for the possibility of it's life and that it must be preserved, I see no proof that it is so.

To those who say its posibility of life is not life enough, let me put a metaphor to you.
What is the point of a metaphor. We know the possibility of something is not treated as sufficient cause to act as though the possibility were currently manifest. Otherwise anyone who could possibly become the US President would have the right to order the armed forces about. That is not the case.

A person is on a life support machine. In 9 months time that persons body will have healled enough for him to support himself again, but in the mean time he cannot live without the machine. I he for those nine months not a person, and thus killing him would be morrally ok?
Your metaphor is senseless, how can a person be not a person at any one time?

I don't think he was saying that it was crazy to be emotionally distressed - just to go so far as to have a funeral. People are emotionally distressed by many things, but we don't have funerals for all of them. Most people think it is either silly or "cute" when a child wants to have a funeral for a pet.

Women will mourn the fact that they were looking forward to a child and never got to have one. It doesn't mean that they should hold a funeral for that lost potential.
what's the problem with it if a memorial service gives her closure and helps her heal?

and if you all are so big on a woman's right, why wouldn't she have the right to mourn her child?

Every overy has the potential to join with a sperm and eventually become human, should we force a girl to have sex as soon as she starts her period? Every sperm ejaculated has the potential to join with an egg and eventually become human, should we force every teenage boy to collect and freeze sperm.

I've already delt with this. Sperm in their natural state will remain sperm. However an embryo in its natural state (which is in a womens body) will develop and grow into a fetus.


Here is another metaphore: Suppose we have a person that requires a kidney (you have two) or liver (you can take part of a liver) transplant to survive. Should we legally require a person to donate that organ to save a patient's life? Why or why not? Is it morally ok for that person to say, "I do not want my organs used, even if there is no danger to me."

If you are the only person able to give that person the kidney and no one else can then yes. You should be required to to save someone elses life

The problem is that we know that it does develop a sentientce and a being, but we dont know when. More to the point, it is developing into one. As long as that development does not threaten the mothers life, we have no business threatening its posibilty to live. And ultimately since we cannot determine when it is alive, but we do know that it does become alive eventually, the only logical course is to not allow it to be aborted since we dont know when it is killing and when it isnt

THANK YOU! At least you actually read it! It looks like we agree on the point of inability to know the crossover point. Now I provide the support that under Jewish Law the child is not considered sentient untill it has been out of the womb for 30 days. I even showed a specific point where in the Old Testament/Torah(sp?) this concept is supported or at least in regards to the pre-born's status. It's not considered by God (as read in Exodus) as a actual person. (And yes I've made the arguments against this particular passage too).

You point of we don't know whether we're killing or not bring us to a point of spiritial/emotional morality versus legal standing/morality. Since it is uncertain, there should be no law per se about it, save maybe that the bearer of the child (women for now, but medical technology may someday allow men to carry as well) the determiner of the baby's status. I again assert that the baby's true status remains unknown prior to leaving the womb in a birthing process, either natural or c-section, while the mother's is absoultely known.

However the infringement of the rights on the part of the woman (risk of disease, periods of bad health, pain etc) are not infringements on the right to life of that woman.

So you are telling me that diseases cannot kill someone? If I give someone HIV, I have not infringed upon that person's right to life? Most people would disagree with you there....

You infringe on the right to life of the embryo if you abort it. If the embryo's existance means the woman will die then it is justifable. Untill you prove that the embryo is breaching the womans right to life as much as the abortion breaches its right to life then it becomes justifable (kill or be killed)

You first have to prove that it has any such right, and that the law should enforce a person's requirement to preserve life at all costs. You would have to, for instance, push for mandatory blood and organ donation - even live organ donation, as a person's right to their blood and organs, or even just not to have to go to the hospital for them, would be subject to another person's right to have them to live...

However the right to life is based on the fact that they are alive.

If that is true, then you can never, ever, ever, kill anything, as it all has a right to life. You cannot kill plants, animals, or even cockroaches.

However, I would suspect that you mean that human persons have a right to life.

An embryo is alive. It may not be a 'person' but it is alive. And it is developing into a person. So the right to life applies. The embryo may be a parasite but parasites are still living things. Right to life is given to all living humans

Let me paraphrase your argument so you can see the problem.

"It gets the right to life because it is alive. Only living humans get that right. An embryo may not be a living human, but it could be one day. Therefore it gets that right."

In other words, "You cannot burn down houses. A stack of lumber may not yet be a house, but it could be one day. Therefore, if you burn it, you have burnt down a house."

The problem is that we know that it does develop a sentientce and a being, but we dont know when. More to the point, it is developing into one.
This argument to me is very poor. At no point during pregnency does an unborn child develop sentience. At most it reaches the level of a dumb animal.

As long as that development does not threaten the mothers life, we have no business threatening its posibilty to live.
I find it completely repulsive that you could justify extinguishing a woman's sovereignty over her own body because of an unborn child that has less reasoning capacity than a lower order animal.

And ultimately since we cannot determine when it is alive, but we do know that it does become alive eventually, the only logical course is to not allow it to be aborted since we dont know when it is killing and when it isnt
Nope. The logical course is that the woman always be able to do whatever she wants with her own body.

And what right do we have to stop this potential? Only when it interfears with other rights. If it doesnt harm you, do it. If the existance of the embryo does not infringe on the mothers right to life then it must be kept alive because the posibility of its life must be preserved. To those who say its posibility of life is not life enough, let me put a metaphor to you. A person is on a life support machine. In 9 months time that persons body will have healled enough for him to support himself again, but in the mean time he cannot live without the machine. I he for those nine months not a person, and thus killing him would be morrally ok?

Again, repeat after me:

A woman is NOT a machine
A woman is NOT a machine
A woman is NOT a machine
A woman is NOT a machine
A woman is NOT a machine

You're bound to understand that sooner or later. You can force a machine be the lungs, heart and kidneys of a living thing, it doesn't mind, it doesn't have sentience(yet anyway). A woman is sentient, and can object to being a life-support mechanism. You're the only one loony enough to say you would relinquish the rights on your own body for the benefit of someone else.

'We' collectively dont have any right, a pregnant woman has the rights granted to her by the nation state in which she resides, or in some cases, whatever rights of other nation states that are accessable to her.

We are debating wheter she should be given those rights


For instance stealing someone else's property to fund it or forcing someone at gunpoint to perform the proceedure? No argument there, such rights as could be infringed are protected under law, whatever is not protected under law, is not a right. So I dont see the problem.

The right to life is protected by law. The embryo is a life. It may not be a "person" but we are not talking about right to personhood. Under the idea of personhood, certian forms of mentally disabled people do not clasify. Is it therefore morally acceptable to legislate their killing


Pregnant women have rights other than the right to not have their lives ended. As for the possibility of it's life and that it must be preserved, I see no proof that it is so.

It is already a life. It is just not a 'person' yet. By being alive it has a right to life


Your metaphor is senseless, how can a person be not a person at any one time?

Exactly. People on here claim that by being dependent on the mother embryo's are not alive and thus can be aborted. My arguemnt proves that is nonsense

why? as soon as these women found out they were pregnant, that was thier child, if I had a miscarriage I would be devastated. Saying that a woman who has emotional distress after having a miscarriage is crazy is very cruel. :( I really expected more of you Jocabia:mad:

Don't be silly. I didn't say she shouldn't have emotional distress. Hell, I would be devestated. But there are lots of things I would be devestated by that don't warrant a funeral. An unborn child is one of them.

Again, repeat after me:

A woman is NOT a machine
A woman is NOT a machine
A woman is NOT a machine
A woman is NOT a machine
A woman is NOT a machine

You're bound to understand that sooner or later. You can force a machine be the lungs, heart and kidneys of a living thing, it doesn't mind, it doesn't have sentience(yet anyway). A woman is sentient, and can object to being a life-support mechanism. You're the only one loony enough to say you would relinquish the rights on your own body for the benefit of someone else.

I am not suggesting a woman is a machine. I am suggesting that she does not have the right to kill if her life is not also in danger. The only justification for abortion is if the life of the mother is in actual danger. Kill or be killed. The right to control of body is not superceeded by the right to life

However the infringement of the rights on the part of the woman (risk of disease, periods of bad health, pain etc) are not infringements on the right to life of that woman.
Right, so I'm not infringing on a person's right to life if I shoot at them because it might not be fatal. Only if I know for a fact prior to firing the gun that the person will definately die am I infringing on their right to live...? That's both bizaare impractical, luckily most courts of law and law legislators appear to have more good sense than that.

You infringe on the right to life of the embryo if you abort it.
Not necessarily. In fact only if such a right actually exists. In the case of the US for example not such exists.

If the embryo's existance means the woman will die then it is justifable. Untill you prove that the embryo is breaching the womans right to life as much as the abortion breaches its right to life then it becomes justifable (kill or be killed)
That's silly; how can you breach a non-existent right?

No it should not have all rights because rights are based on capacity.
No they are not.

The right to vote is based on the capacity to make an informed decis.
No it isnt.

Children cannot do that. However the right to life is based on the fact that they are alive. An embryo is alive. It may not be a 'person' but it is alive.
Cows are alive before we kill them to eat. Clearly any right to life that may exist for some live things, is not premised on the simple ability to be or fact of being alive.

And it is developing into a person.
But isnt a person, so does not have the rights of a person.

So the right to life applies.
Clearly it empiracally doesnt in many cases.

The embryo may be a parasite but parasites are still living things. Right to life is given to all living humans
Right to life is not necessarily given to all humans.

If you are the only person able to give that person the kidney and no one else can then yes. You should be required to to save someone elses life

No you should not. You are a danger to society for saying so. You have no rights upon my body. If you WISH to surrender yours like that, fine, it is your right.

Don't try to force me or any other sane person to do something they don,t want to do with their body. Or is that so hard to understand? :headbang:

You're the only one loony enough to say you would relinquish the rights on your own body for the benefit of someone else.

And I'm betting he wouldn't be so sure if he was actually faced with a situation like that. We'll never know, though, since such a thing is absurd and would never happen.

We are debating wheter she should be given those rights.
Is anyone else chilled by this medieval view that we should debate whether a women has the right to decide what happens to her own body? The rights of the individual are sovereign.

The right to life is protected by law.
Rubbish. The right of a person to life is the only right to life recognised. Other forms of life do not have a right to life.

It may not be a "person" but we are not talking about right to personhood.
No woman should be coerced in order so something can achive "personhood" anymore then someone should be coerced to donate their kidney against their will.

Under the idea of personhood, certian forms of mentally disabled people do not clasify.
Strawman.

It is already a life. It is just not a 'person' yet. By being alive it has a right to life.
An E.Coli is "life", but has no rights to life. Argument debunked.

The right to life is protected by law. The embryo is a life. It may not be a "person" but we are not talking about right to personhood.


I guess you can't kill animals or plants or bacteria or viruses in your country, since the right to life extends beyond persons.

I am not suggesting a woman is a machine. I am suggesting that she does not have the right to kill if her life is not also in danger. The only justification for abortion is if the life of the mother is in actual danger. Kill or be killed. The right to control of body is not superceeded by the right to lifeI trust you'll be purchasing all the food and shelter for every handicapped person who can't afford such, right? After all, you have no right to control your body when there are people dying for lack of something you might have.

If you are the only person able to give that person the kidney and no one else can then yes. You should be required to to save someone elses life

Not only no, not only H*** no, but M*F*ing H*** NO!

At no point is anyone required to do anything they do not wish to engage in. You can make a law that says you can't do something because it infringes on someone else's rights, but you can't make a law to say they have to. ANd don't try to turn this around on the baby's rights, I've already made my point on that status.

So you are telling me that diseases cannot kill someone? If I give someone HIV, I have not infringed upon that person's right to life? Most people would disagree with you there....

Depends on the probabilty level of death. Abortion is 100% for the child. If it certian that the mother will catch a potenitally fatal disease then it is acceptable grounds for abortion.


If that is true, then you can never, ever, ever, kill anything, as it all has a right to life. You cannot kill plants, animals, or even cockroaches.

However, I would suspect that you mean that human persons have a right to life.


Indeed, human life


"It gets the right to life because it is alive. Only living humans get that right. An embryo may not be a living human, but it could be one day. Therefore it gets that right."

In other words, "You cannot burn down houses. A stack of lumber may not yet be a house, but it could be one day. Therefore, if you burn it, you have burnt down a house."

No because the definiton of a house is something diffrent than a lumber. Lumber is to a house as cytoplasm is to a zygote. Lumber furthermore is not actually in the proceess of becoming a house. If you burn down a building site where the lumber is being used as part of a house then yes, you have burnt down a house. Its not "It could be one day" its "it will be one day". Unless the growth of that child threatens the life of the mother, its existance is justifable as being a living human. It is a seprate organism from the mother (diffrent genetic material, even being classed a parasite, parasites are still seperate life forms) and has the right to develop into a human life because it is alive. It is never dead, never posesses the qualities of being dead.

I am not suggesting a woman is a machine. I am suggesting that she does not have the right to kill if her life is not also in danger. The only justification for abortion is if the life of the mother is in actual danger. Kill or be killed. The right to control of body is not superceeded by the right to life

Where the fuck do you live, Avalon, for the right of a non-person to eventual potential life to supersede ANY other right in the chart?:headbang:

Because I'm never moving there. Especially if any moron can steal my liver or kidneys while I'm sleeping because "he needs it".

I trust you'll be purchasing all the food and shelter for every handicapped person who can't afford such, right? After all, you have no right to control your body when there are people dying for lack of something you might have.

If I was the only person who could provide it then yes

The mother is the only one who can keep the Baby alive, thus she has a responsablity.

Exactly. People on here claim that by being dependent on the mother embryo's are not alive and thus can be aborted. My arguemnt proves that is nonsense

Nope, wrong again. People are saying that because it is inside the woman, the woman can terminate it when and if she choses. An individual is the ultimate arbiter of her body.

Looking over this thread, it interests me that many of the same posters who espouse very traditional principles (including not measuring one's right to life against another's) on other threads have jumped at the chance to proclaim that they are, indeed, for abortion if it will save the life of the mother. For these posters, I have two questions:
1) Do you believe that a fetus is a human life
2) If you answered yes to the first question, do you believe that we have the
right to kill one person to save another?
Basically, what I'm getting at is, do you guys really believe that a fetus is a full-fledged human life or are you trying to argue both sides of the coin?

Where the fuck do you live, Avalon, for the right of a non-person to eventual potential life to supersede ANY other right in the chart?:headbang:

Because I'm never moving there. Especially if any moron can steal my liver or kidneys while I'm sleeping because "he needs it".

If you are the only person in the world who can supply the organs needed and you can do without them, you have a responsability to give them up.

And I'm betting he wouldn't be so sure if he was actually faced with a situation like that. We'll never know, though, since such a thing is absurd and would never happen.

Oh, but I do trust his good word that if I'm ever in dire need of a new kidney I can just give him a ring :rolleyes:

If I was the only person who could provide it then yes

Basically, you're arguing that the rights of the indivudal mean nothing at all.

If you are the only person able to give that person the kidney and no one else can then yes. You should be required to to save someone elses life

How do you deal with those such as Orthodox Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses who believe organ donation is immoral?

Nope, wrong again. People are saying that because it is inside the woman, the woman can terminate it when and if she choses.

Why though? It is not part of her? She is not it, it is not her life to chose. It is its own life. Since it cannot defend itself, the law should defend it.

Oh, but I do trust his good word that if I'm ever in dire need of a new kidney I can just give him a ring :rolleyes:

As I have said, only if I am the only person in the world. I would of course be happy to give you a new kidney if you did indeed need it.

what's the problem with it if a memorial service gives her closure and helps her heal?

If it truly helps her heal, nothing is wrong with at all. However, I think Jocabia was suggesting that her need for one may be indicitive of a larger problem.

and if you all are so big on a woman's right, why wouldn't she have the right to mourn her child?

I never said she didn't. In fact, I explicitly said that any woman who wanted a child will mourn the loss of a pregnancy. In truth, even those who don't want children and end their pregnancies intentionally often mourn that loss.

How do you deal with those such as Orthodox Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses who believe organ donation is immoral?

I dont believe their right to belief is as vital as anothers right to life. If they refuse to donate their own organs to memebrs of their own faith thats fine, but if there is someone who could only suvive on a particular Othrodox Jew's kidney then it is not moral that he should refuse that man his life because of his belief.

As I have said, only if I am the only person in the world. I would of course be happy to give you a new kidney if you did indeed need it.

What if there are multiple people, how do you decide whose responcibility it is to give the organ?

Basically, you're arguing that the rights of the indivudal mean nothing at all.

I am arguing that the right to life over-rides all other rights.

Why though? It is not part of her? She is not it, it is not her life to chose. It is its own life. Since it cannot defend itself, the law should defend it.

Let me make this clear to you.

1. A woman has the ultimate right to control her own body.
2. The foetus is part of her body, it is connected to her body.
3. The foetus has no right to life, as it is not a person.
4. Even if it was a person, it is still her body and she is in no way obligated to assist it.
5. If a person cannot extinguish a woman's right to chose what medical procedures are conducted on her person, a non-sentient collection of cells sure as hell can't.

I dont believe their right to belief is as vital as anothers right to life. If they refuse to donate their own organs to memebrs of their own faith thats fine, but if there is someone who could only suvive on a particular Othrodox Jew's kidney then it is not moral that he should refuse that man his life because of his belief.

Ah... so your moral beliefs are more important than an Orthodox Jew's.

What if there are multiple people, how do you decide whose responcibility it is to give the organ?

Depending on whether or not they brought the need for the organ upon themselves or if it came about through acident etc.

Ah... so your moral beliefs are more important than an Orthodox Jew's.

The right to life is more important than the right to freedom of thought. Of course the question here being, would the OJ's right to life be siginificently imparied by the transplant. If yes then his own life is above.

If you are the only person in the world who can supply the organs needed and you can do without them, you have a responsability to give them up.

Fuck No.

I have no responsability whatsoever. Not a being in this decides what happens to my body but me.

Entreat me and ask for my help and you might very well get it :fluffle:

Try to force me against my will, and you get :sniper:

I am arguing that the right to life over-rides all other rights.

I'll not say this again, only a person has the right to life.

Secondly, my right to life does not overide the sovereignty of another person's rights as an individual no matter what. I'm sorry, but your position that someone's rights should overide another person's sovereignty over themselves is just looney. Your the only person I've ever had an argument with who argues that someone should be forced into helping another person even if it does them harm.

Depending on whether or not they brought the need for the organ upon themselves or if it came about through acident etc.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. If there are multiple people who can donate, but no one wants to, how do you decide which one is required to donate?

I trust you'll be purchasing all the food and shelter for every handicapped person who can't afford such, right? After all, you have no right to control your body when there are people dying for lack of something you might have.

Good point.

Where the fuck do you live, Avalon, for the right of a non-person to eventual potential life to supersede ANY other right in the chart?:headbang:

Because I'm never moving there. Especially if any moron can steal my liver or kidneys while I'm sleeping because "he needs it".

LMAO

Oh, but I do trust his good word that if I'm ever in dire need of a new kidney I can just give him a ring :rolleyes:

Would you really? 'Cause I sure wouldn't want any parts of him in me.

I am arguing that the right to life over-rides all other rights.

A person's right to life does not override my right's of liberty and the right to choose what to do with my body.

I'll not say this again, only a person has the right to life.

Secondly, my right to life does not overide the sovereignty of another person's rights as an individual no matter what. That's just looney. Your the only person I've ever had an argument with who argues that someone should be forced into helping another person even if it does them harm.

It depends on how much harm. If it does harm to the extent that it violoates your own right to life to a signifcent level then yes it shouldnt happen. But if it does not then it should

As I have said, only if I am the only person in the world. I would of course be happy to give you a new kidney if you did indeed need it.
And if you're not the only person in the world, you get to refuse?

What if every "not the only person in the world" refuses? I die? And get off the hook because somebody else could have taken "responsibility" for you?

You don't want the foetus to die, it's YOUR responsibility to find a way for it to survive.

The right to life is more important than the right to freedom of thought. Of course the question here being, would the OJ's right to life be siginificently imparied by the transplant. If yes then his own life is above.

I would feel just the opposite, Freedom of Thought is more important than the right to live, (Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!)

Now, who is correct? How do we decided?

Sorry, I should have been more clear. If there are multiple people who can donate, but no one wants to, how do you decide which one is required to donate?

The one who will suffer the least as a result of the donation.

Is it a question of soul? Multi-celled organisms? Brainwaves? Or is it a question of superiority? At what time do you decide if anything consisting of living matter should have the right to be? Are you a plant killer or an animal killer? Are you against the death penalty for a parent who brutally murders their unwanted toddler? Just thoughts to chew on.

With that aside, I am personally against abortion, but I do feel there are certain undeniable circumstances when a woman should have the right to chose whether or not it is more humane to have an abortion than to bring a fetus to full term.

The one who will suffer the least as a result of the donation.
What if 2 will suffer equally?

And if you're not the only person in the world, you get to refuse

What if every "not the only person in the world" refuses? I die? And get off the hook because somebody else could have taken "responsibility" for you?

If everyone refuses the one who has the least to lose should give it up


You don't want the foetus to die, it's YOUR responsibility to find a way for it to survive.

It can suvive in the womans body if its not harmed.

Depends on the probabilty level of death. Abortion is 100% for the child. If it certian that the mother will catch a potenitally fatal disease then it is acceptable grounds for abortion.

So I can only be charged with a crime if I actually kill someone, not if I try and fail?

Indeed, human life

You can't say human life either - that would include individual human cells. It only makes sense if we refer to a human person.

No because the definiton of a house is something diffrent than a lumber.

And the definition of a person is generally different from that of an embryo.

Lumber furthermore is not actually in the proceess of becoming a house.

It could be.

It is a seprate organism from the mother

Not until it meets all of the requirements to be deemed an organism, which an embryo/early fetus does not.

It is only after it reaches that point that it can be classified as a parasite.

(diffrent genetic material, even being classed a parasite, parasites are still seperate life forms) and has the right to develop into a human life because it is alive. It is never dead, never posesses the qualities of being dead.

You really must make up your mind. Is it "developing into a human life" or "already a human life"?

I dont believe their right to belief is as vital as anothers right to life. If they refuse to donate their own organs to memebrs of their own faith thats fine, but if there is someone who could only suvive on a particular Othrodox Jew's kidney then it is not moral that he should refuse that man his life because of his belief.

Moral =/= Legal !!!!!

Start thinking before you post. Morality has NOTHING to do in a code of laws. NOTHING. Keep your morals to yourself, and I'll keep mine at home.

Under no circumstances is someone permitted to force his moral code upon others. Get that out of your head.

Our legal system is based on charts of human rights, which includes the right to decide what happens to your body. It is not based on moral principles, and even less YOUR particular moral principles.

I'll not say this again, only a person has the right to life.

Secondly, my right to life does not overide the sovereignty of another person's rights as an individual no matter what. I'm sorry, but your position that someone's rights should overide another person's sovereignty over themselves is just looney. Your the only person I've ever had an argument with who argues that someone should be forced into helping another person even if it does them harm.

Not the only, actually. I read on the news recently that a woman was sentenced to jail time for not helping a drowning child out of a lake (it was during a storm, if I recall correctly), even though the woman couldn't swim. This is being appealled, of course, but it's not unheard of.

Is anyone else chilled by this medieval view that we should debate whether a women has the right to decide what happens to her own body? The rights of the individual are sovereign.

Indeed the rights of the individual are sovereign. However, the crux of the arguement is whether or not the fetus actually classifies as a seperate individual, with right of its own, under the assumption that it is a sentient enity. It is not a medieval view. It is a valid view based upon his belief that the fetus is so.

I'm am not in agreement with Avalon's point of view, however, I do believe that calling his view medieval is a tad over the top. Especially since in Medieval times they wouldn't have done much about the loss of a unborn child through means other than natural miscarriage. By the standards of the time, our view is actually the medieval one insofar as how we are viewing the fetus.

What if 2 will suffer equally?

The person who needs the organ least then.

I am arguing that the right to life over-rides all other rights.
No it does not. Nowhere, as far as I know, in ANY chart of human rights of ANY country does it say the right of life over-rides any other rights.

According to you, I could decide my right to life requires me to enslave people to provide me what I need to survive, which would effectively rob them of their right to freedom. This is utter nonsense.

The person who needs the organ least then.
It's a kidney... it's kind of required for people equally.

Moral =/= Legal !!!!!

Start thinking before you post. Morality has NOTHING to do in a code of laws. NOTHING. Keep your morals to yourself, and I'll keep mine at home.

Under no circumstances is someone permitted to force his moral code upon others. Get that out of your head.

Our legal system is based on charts of human rights, which includes the right to decide what happens to your body. It is not based on moral principles, and even less YOUR particular moral principles.

Legality and Morality are intrisicly linked. Is it moral to allow a living human to be legally killed? Of course not. Moral principals must be to an extent forced, otherwise we have no such thing as laws. The moral principal says that killing humans is wrong. An embryo is a human. It is a human embryo but its no less human than a human toddler or a human teenager. It is living and a seprate organism to its mother

The right to life is more important than the right to freedom of thought. Of course the question here being, would the OJ's right to life be siginificently imparied by the transplant. If yes then his own life is above.


What if I believe the right to Freedom of Thought is more important than the Right to Life? (I know if I was denied Freedom of Thought, I would probably commit suicide) Who is right, how do we decide?

It's a kidney... it's kind of required for people equally.

But people may need it less if they dont drink alcohol in the first place for example. Or if they are younger and dont drink as much etc

But people may need it less if they dont drink alcohol in the first place for example. Or if they are younger and dont drink as much etc

Liver works the alchohal, not kidneys

It can suvive in the womans body if its not harmed.

I said YOU want it to live. Therefore, YOU need to find a solution to ensure it's survival.

Stop pushing your stupid conception of everyone having to "sacrifice themselves for the greater good because you said so".

If someone wants to sacrifice him/herself for the greater good, cool, s/he's a hero. If s/he doesn't, cool s/he's smart and stays alive, and it's his/her right.

However, the crux of the arguement is whether or not the fetus actually classifies as a seperate individual
It is not possible to hold the view that a foetus is sentient, that is simply contrary to the facts.

Even if we say that it is, for argument's sake, I've yet to see any coherent reason why that should therefore void the woman's choice to do with her body what she wishes. The foetus is part of her body, that much is undeniable. The foetus is also dependant on her body. She therefore has sovereignty over it, just as she has sovereignty over every single one of her cells.


I'm am not in agreement with Avalon's point of view, however, I do believe that calling his view medieval is a tad over the top.
I consider it Medieval that he would argue that a woman's rights over her body should be voided. Such a thing harks back strongly to the Medieval mentality of women as property.

What if I believe the right to Freedom of Thought is more important than the Right to Life? (I know if I was denied Freedom of Thought, I would probably commit suicide) Who is right, how do we decide?

Perhaps I havent made myself clear. Freedom of thought is not something I oppose. But freedom of thought does not mean you have the right to move to a potistion to threaten others lives or to refuse to save someones life if they are in need of your and only your help.

Perhaps I havent made myself clear. Freedom of thought is not something I oppose. But freedom of thought does not mean you have the right to move to a potistion to threaten others lives or to refuse to save someones life if they are in need of your and only your help.

Using this line of argument we can extinguish any civil right when it benifits a certain "ideal".

It is not possible to hold the view that a foetus is sentient, that is simply contrary to the facts.

Even if we say that it is, for argument's sake, I've yet to see any coherent reason why that should therefore void the woman's choice to do with her body what she wishes. The foetus is part of her body, that much is undeniable. She has sovereignty over it, just as she has sovereignty over every single one of her cells.

The fetus is not her cells. It is not part of her body. The genetic material of its make up makes that fact clear. It is its own organism. The right of a woman to her body is superceeded by the right of the embryo to life.


I consider it Medieval that he would argue that a woman's rights over her body should be voided. Such a thing harks back strongly to the Medieval mentality of women as property.

I consider that a right to body control is less of a right than a right to life. Surely you must also consider the embryo's right to a body?

Legality and Morality are intrisicly linked. Is it moral to allow a living human to be legally killed? Of course not.

Why not? If I remember my Bible correctly, there's quite a few things deserving of death penalty. And certainly you can't presume we all think mass murderers morally have a right to life, so morality is individual. Whose should prevail?

Moral principals must be to an extent forced, otherwise we have no such thing as laws. The moral principal says that killing humans is wrong. An embryo is a human. It is a human embryo but its no less human than a human toddler or a human teenager. It is living and a seprate organism to its mother

If it was a "seprate" organism to its mother, it could very well be, well, separated from her, couldn't it? The whole point is that it can't without dying.

We are debating wheter she should be given those rights
No, we debating whether those already existing rights that are extended to all competent adults ought to be removed specifically from a particular section of the community.

The right to life is protected by law.
No it's not. Otherwise KFC, and anyone else serving up animals killed for eating would be in a bit of trouble.

The embryo is a life.
Well so was the pig that I ate a part of last night...tasted good too.

It may not be a "person" but we are not talking about right to personhood.
It's not a person, and there is no automatic right to life.

Under the idea of personhood, certian forms of mentally disabled people do not clasify. Is it therefore morally acceptable to legislate their killing
I suppose there are some paradigms of personhood in which a mentally disabled person wouldnt qualify as a person. They would be few and far between. I dont know of anyone in this thread asking for or supporting that abortions be legislated other than yourself.

It is already a life. It is just not a 'person' yet. By being alive it has a right to life
Clearly it doesnt! If it had such a right then why are doctors who are known to perform abortions not being arrested? You might think it should have that right, but clearly at this point in time it doesnt!


Exactly. People on here claim that by being dependent on the mother embryo's are not alive and thus can be aborted. My arguemnt proves that is nonsense
They do? Are you certain you have not misinterpred their arguments?

The fetus is not her cells. It is not part of her body. The genetic material of its make up makes that fact clear. It is its own organism. The right of a woman to her body is superceeded by the right of the embryo to life.
If the embryo is its own organism why is it dependent on the mother to survive?

I'm am not in agreement with Avalon's point of view, however, I do believe that calling his view medieval is a tad over the top. Especially since in Medieval times they wouldn't have done much about the loss of a unborn child through means other than natural miscarriage. By the standards of the time, our view is actually the medieval one insofar as how we are viewing the fetus.

Methinks you haven't actually studied "the views of the time." In medieval times, a pregnancy was not given consideration until it reached the point of the quickening - when a woman can feel actual movement (kicking). This occurs later than the end of the first trimester, which is the point at which the law begins to restrict abortions.

Also, traditional English common law (which the US followed up until medicine came up with a relatively safe abortion procedure) held that a woman could not be prosecuted in any way for an abortion prior to the quickening, as the quickening was deemed to be the point at which the fetus should get legal recognition...

Most people don't know that there were no laws against abortion in this country until it became a safe medical procedure. Before that, people still had abortions - usually with midwives and old concoctions, but they were not prosecuted for them.

Legality and Morality are intrisicly linked. Is it moral to allow a living human to be legally killed? Of course not. Moral principals must be to an extent forced, otherwise we have no such thing as laws. The moral principal says that killing humans is wrong. An embryo is a human. It is a human embryo but its no less human than a human toddler or a human teenager. It is living and a seprate organism to its mother

Morality and Legality have nothing linking them. Only in your imagination are they linked. Laws are based upon objective and secular charts that give human beings rights. The right to dispose of your own body as you see fit is among them.

An embryo is not a human. It does not have rights. A woman is a human. She has the right to dispose of her body as she sees fit. A human embryo is far less human that a toddler or a teenager. Read the damn civil code for god's sake. Stop taking arguments out of your ass and read and think before you talk.

You cannot force your moral principles on me by the way of law. If it was possible, all I'd have to say is that your moral principles are immoral and therefore illegal. This makes no sense whatsoever. You need more than just wishing something was real for it to be real. :headbang:

Perhaps I havent made myself clear. Freedom of thought is not something I oppose. But freedom of thought does not mean you have the right to move to a potistion to threaten others lives or to refuse to save someones life if they are in need of your and only your help.

I would say it does. I do donate to charity and help people to survive, but millions starve to death and I have a computer (and I bet you do too) that could be sold for money to save them. Should I be forced to do it? I live in a comfortable apartment whose rent is higher than I could get. SHould I be forced to move and donate that money? I don't really need to have electricity, should I be forced to go without and donate the money to save people? I spend money on feeding my dog, while other people starve, should I be forced to donate that money and let my dog starve?

Of course, I'm not the only one who could donate... who need the money least.... I know Bill Gates!!! Let's make him give several billion dollars away. Who says communism isn't a good idea?

The fetus is not her cells. It is not part of her body. The genetic material of its make up makes that fact clear. It is its own organism.

The genetic material is quite irrelevent. Gametes have not got the same genetic material as the normal cells of a woman but nobody would argue they aren't hers.

The fact is it is part of her, dependant on her. It grows from her. However, she is under no obligation to provide for it, she does not have a responcibility to ensure that it continues to develop.

The right of a woman to her body is superceeded by the right of the embryo to life.
Only according to your strange self-sacrificing ideology. You'll never convince me to support a rolling-back of civil rights of a person because of the made up "rights" of a non-person.

I consider that a right to body control is less of a right than a right to life. Surely you must also consider the embryo's right to a body?
No, of course not. A woman is not a breeding machine, she is not obligated to make sure an embryo develops into life.

I consider that a right to body control is less of a right than a right to life. Surely you must also consider the embryo's right to a body?

We've been telling you, all the dozens of us anyway, that WE DISAGREE ON THAT. For the last 20 pages! :headbang:

The right to life is more important than the right to freedom of thought. Of course the question here being, would the OJ's right to life be siginificently imparied by the transplant. If yes then his own life is above.

You're making a basic common mistake in what a right is. A right is something that no one can take from you save illegaly and/or imorrally. The right to life only means that lafe cannot be taken from you by another person with out your consent. You can remove your own life....it's yours to do with as you please (religious moral issues aside). You can have someone remove it for you at your request... you've consented to it.

However, no one is required to provide for your right, because doing so deprives them of their right(s). A side example: You DO have the right to medical care. However, no one is required to give it to you. Your right only prevents someone from stopping you from seeking medical care or passing a law to prevent you from recieveing it.

No one right is more important that another, save within a person's own opinion, and then they can only be applied to his own rights. Your right to life may be more important than your right to thought. However, I view my right to thought and choice more important than my right to life.

If the embryo is its own organism why is it dependent on the mother to survive?
And if it is and she opposes, then it's a parasite.

What do we do to parasitic life-forms again?

That's right.

If the woman wants the baby, then it's a symbiotic relationship and all is well. If she doesn't, then it's parasitic and IT HAS TO GO.

A woman is not a breeding machine, she is not obligated to make sure an embryo develops into life.

<3

We've been telling you, all the dozens of us anyway, that WE DISAGREE ON THAT. For the last 20 pages! :headbang:

Almost 30, now.

see what happens when you let women think they have rights - they think they can do anything they want ... bring back the good old days where women did what they were told and were nothing more than baby making machines and shut their traps . men need to put women back in the kitchen and bedroom and make babies - otherwise whats the use? oh yeah on abortion - 1/3 of my genration has been wiped out -what do they replace us with - cheap mexican labor . i cant even get a decent job with out some wet back taking the job for lower pay .

Almost 30, now.
I can't believe I spent so much time arguing for a woman's right to have sex and not be a breeding machine.

I'm a gay male for god's sake. I'm not even supposed to feel concerned by this.

Legality and Morality are intrisicly linked. Is it moral to allow a living human to be legally killed? Of course not. Moral principals must be to an extent forced, otherwise we have no such thing as laws. The moral principal says that killing humans is wrong. An embryo is a human. It is a human embryo but its no less human than a human toddler or a human teenager. It is living and a seprate organism to its mother

Some would say that drinking (alcohol) is immoral. Others that sex other than procreation is immoral. Some say eating certain foods are immoral. Some say wearing bright colors are immoral. Some say that allowing women to vote is immoral.

On the other side of the coin there are those who believe that killing others not of their belief system is absoultly moral.

Now who decided who is right among these things and those moral beliefs are turned into law?

Also, traditional English common law (which the US followed up until medicine came up with a relatively safe abortion procedure) held that a woman could not be prosecuted in any way for an abortion prior to the quickening, as the quickening was deemed to be the point at which the fetus should get legal recognition...

Most people don't know that there were no laws against abortion in this country until it became a safe medical procedure. Before that, people still had abortions - usually with midwives and old concoctions, but they were not prosecuted for them.
Actually I understood that abortions were made illegal in the US at a time when they were quite dangerous (to the mother).

I can't believe I spent so much time arguing for a woman's right to have sex and not be a breeding machine.

I'm a gay male for god's sake. I'm not even supposed to feel concerned by this.

Hey, civil rights are everyone's concern! I'd defend gay marriage rights in a forum, and I'm straight. Us sane people need to band together and help each other. We're a dying race.

But, yeah, it's a awful lot of time spent arguing what should be self-evident issues.

Hey, civil rights are everyone's concern! I'd defend gay marriage rights in a forum, and I'm straight. Us sane people need to band together and help each other. We're a dying race.

But, yeah, it's a awful lot of time spent arguing what should be self-evident issues.

Well, I think the fact that I've been going at it for at least 20 pages shows that I do care.:fluffle:

Yes, sane people are a dying race. But we can always requisition Avalon's body to save ourselves. Thank his limitless generosity. :rolleyes:

But it is too late for me to continue with this charade of a discussion. More like a dialogue with a deaf person. I'm going to sleep, and I'll be back defending the women's right not to be machines tomorrow. Or the day after tomorrow if I'm too busy :p

Morality and Legality have nothing linking them. Only in your imagination are they linked. Laws are based upon objective and secular charts that give human beings rights. The right to dispose of your own body as you see fit is among them.

Not so. Dispite the seeming contridiction to my previous post, Laws and Morals are very closely linked. The issue of abortion=murder aside, it is pretty universally agreed that murder is wrong morally. Thus we have made a law about it. Now not ALL laws are liked to Morals. Failure to pay taxes is not immoral, but it is certainally illegal. Likewise, not all morals are made into laws. Recreational sex for example. But the CORE of Laws are based on universal morals. Much more detail requires a seperate thread I believe.

Well, I think the fact that I've been going at it for at least 20 pages shows that I do care.:fluffle:

Yes, sane people are a dying race. But we can always requisition Avalon's body to save ourselves. Thank his limitless generosity. :rolleyes:

But it is too late for me to continue with this charade of a discussion. More like a dialogue with a deaf person. I'm going to sleep, and I'll be back defending the women's right not to be machines tomorrow. Or the day after tomorrow if I'm too busy :p

Yes, this has been going on for quite long enough. Here I was just wondering through the forum to pass the time before the next issue (does anyone else think the max. 2 per day isn't enough, or is that just me?) and got all caught up in the argument. Time to let go of it until we can actually smash into walls the heads of people who don't listen.

But, yeah, it's a awful lot of time spent arguing what should be self-evident issues.

Tayledras proverb: Common sense, isn't.

But that same token: self evident issues, aren't.

Otherwise we would have all these debates

Hey, civil rights are everyone's concern! I'd defend gay marriage rights in a forum, and I'm straight. Us sane people need to band together and help each other. We're a dying race.

But, yeah, it's a awful lot of time spent arguing what should be self-evident issues.

Indeed, it’s more then that though. All of these rights come back to the one fundamental idea, that humans are clever enough to work things out for themselves. You don’t need someone else to tell you how to run your own life, you can decide that for yourself. Somebody does not know better then me, no matter how frothing at the mouth he might be. As I’ve said so many times in this thread, the individual is sovereign.

So long as his or her actions do not infringe on other’s rights, there is no reason to restrict them. It is the fundamental liberal civil right. Now, if any civil right can be extinguished (be it the right to have an abortion or the right to marry whomever you wish, which are the two rights you’ve mentioned) then no civil right is safe.

We must defend civil liberties wherever they are threatened.

That, plus I really get pissed off by the ‘women as property’ mentality of some people.

Not so. Dispite the seeming contridiction to my previous post, Laws and Morals are very closely linked. The issue of abortion=murder aside, it is pretty universally agreed that murder is wrong morally. Thus we have made a law about it. Now not ALL laws are liked to Morals. Failure to pay taxes is not immoral, but it is certainally illegal. Likewise, not all morals are made into laws. Recreational sex for example. But the CORE of Laws are based on universal morals. Much more detail requires a seperate thread I believe.

If law does have a moral code in western liberal countries it should only be the idea that morals are subjective (which I'd argue is not a moral idea), and should be left to the individual to decide. Therefore, the sole purpose of law need only be to protect a person's civil liberties.

Of course, not all people (read: people who want to run other people's lives) subscribe to this school of thought.

It happens to be "sir."

I'm glad you are willing to be educated. But you stated things as if they were facts when they are not.

You can "see" whatever you want when looking at a 12-week old fetus, but that does not mean that, as a matter of science, it has a functioning brain.

Moreoever, as I documented 90% of abortions are performed before that 12-week stage.

I apologize for the ma’am. I got an image when reading your post of a matronly woman shaking her finger at me and went with it.

I went over that chapter again it does not say the brain is working at 100% capacity but the brain is clearly there with all its parts. We know from science that it is working to some extent.

I am sorry for having to type this all out you may have a library you can go to and pull this up at.

Brain wave activity can be measured at 12 weeks. The study paid for by Tommy's campaign a charity not for profit organization whose goal is to prevent premature birth, miscarriage and stillbirth. And carried out by J.Hykin, R.Moore, *K.Duncan, *P.Baker, *I.Johnson, S.Clare, R.Bowtell, P.Mansfield and P.Gowland. Magnetic Resonance Centre, School of Physics & Astronomy, *School of Human Development, City Hospital, University of Nottingham, NG7 2RD.
Tested 5 women in 1996 using magnetic resonance imaging. The women recorded a rhyme which was played while this was going on. In 4, BOLD signal could be seen in the temporal lobes and sagittal sinus. The fifth moved around so much they were unable to conclusive evidence.
This was more recently confirmed by Charles E. Wood, Ph.D. Chairman of the Dept of Physiology and Functional Genomics Professor in the College of Medicine at the University of Florida. He is part of a group studying the effects of stress on developing fetus. Having to do with things way beyond me.

I would argue that the brain wave activity takes it out of the realm of a mass of cells leaching off its mother.

I never claimed anything about the CDC's facts or figure nor did I ever dispute them. I am very happy that most happen that early. I would rather they not happened at all.


Regards,

JMayo

Tayledras proverb: Common sense, isn't.

But that same token: self evident issues, aren't.

Otherwise we would have all these debates

Too true.

Indeed, it’s more then that though. All of these rights come back to the one fundamental idea, that humans are clever enough to work things out for themselves. You don’t need someone else to tell you how to run your own life, you can decide that for yourself. Somebody does not know better then me, no matter how frothing at the mouth he might be. As I’ve said so many times in this thread, the individual is sovereign.

That, plus I really get pissed off by the ‘women as property’ mentality of some people.

Hear, hear. 'Course, trying to change Avalon's mind won't work. We can just hope somebody somewhere really needs to have a new brain, and whoever isn't using theirs will have to donate it.

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.

I get so angry when I see bullshit threads like this. It's quite simple. It is NOT the place of you, me, or anyone else to make descisions for other people. IF there is a god that does indeed consider abortion "murder", then it will be his (and his alone) job to deal with the "sinner" in any supposed afterlife there may or may not be. You can hate abortion all you like, but if you go banning it you, and all those like you, will take that final step into becoming the oppressor. What comes next? Banning condoms? Birth control? Sex? Will you make everyone wear the same color and have the same haircut? What about those evil brown-haired people? What would be next on your list?

*cut because I deem it too offensive to repeat*

Uncalled for. I assume you think you're being funny, but you essentially just wished death on another poster and it says much about you as a forum poster and as a person and none of it good. I'm all for good humor, but your post was beyond the line.

EDIT: Euro pointed out something about your post that I actually found pretty funny, so I admit the humor. I'm sorry if I was a stick-in-the-mud, but I prefer good debate to cheap shots.

I get so angry when I see bullshit threads like this. It's quite simple. It is NOT the place of you, me, or anyone else to make descisions for other people. IF there is a god that does indeed consider abortion "murder", then it will be his (and his alone) job to deal with the "sinner" in any supposed afterlife there may or may not be.

Sorry but for all I agree with your overall point of view, I must point out the fallicy of the particular arguement.

By what you said I could murder you and it would be God's
"(and his alone) job to deal with the "sinner" in any supposed afterlife there may or may not be. "

You assertion lacks the clarifiers to show you are refering strictly to an issue which cannot have a clear definable basis (i.e. is the fetus sentient and seperate and entitled to protection of life sepertate and apart of the desires of the mother)

Uncalled for. I assume you think you're being funny, but you essentially just wished death on another poster and it says much about you as a forum poster and as a person and none of it good. I'm all for good humor, but your post was beyond the line.

Well, he has shown very little consideration for the lives of a lot of women. If you can't deal with ill wishes that aren't even directed at you, you should consider getting off teh internets, 'cause there's plenty of people out here that wouldn't bother even being as polite as I was.

By the way, I never said Avalon should die, only that people not using their brains don't deserve to have them more than, for instance, someone with a brain tumor (but I'm sure you're aware that "brain transplants" are impossible with our current technology, so it's a moot point). It was a joke funnier than "women don't get to have an abortion unless the pregnancy kills them."

Well, he has shown very little consideration for the lives of a lot of women. If you can't deal with ill wishes that aren't even directed at you, you should consider getting off teh internets, 'cause there's plenty of people out here that wouldn't bother even being as polite as I was.

By the way, I never said Avalon should die, only that people not using their brains don't deserve to have them more than, for instance, someone with a brain tumor (but I'm sure you're aware that "brain transplants" are impossible with our current technology, so it's a moot point). It was a joke funnier than "women don't get to have an abortion unless the pregnancy kills them."

Actually, I editted my response to your post, but the argument about what can be done on the rest of the internet doesn't hold water. Here, if you are caught suggesting that a poster deserves to be harmed you earn a forumban. This wasn't that, but it does a poster good to be aware of the rules HERE, not what is acceptable elsewhere.

Uncalled for. I assume you think you're being funny, but you essentially just wished death on another poster and it says much about you as a forum poster and as a person and none of it good. I'm all for good humor, but your post was beyond the line.

My understanding was that Erisianna was merely making fun of Avalon's strange argument that he thought people should be forced to surrender their organs to save the lives of others so long as their lives are not in danger.

Actually, I editted my response to your post, but the argument about what can be done on the rest of the internet doesn't hold water. Here, if you are caught suggesting that a poster deserves to be harmed you earn a forumban. This wasn't that, but it does a poster good to be aware of the rules HERE, not what is acceptable elsewhere.

Well, forgive the newbie for speaking out of turn. I wouldn't say any poster deserves to be harmed, but a little personal experience with complicated pregnancies could possibly help a few people understand a different opinion. However, someone's pointed out that a certain poster here is most likely not female, therefore won't get to sacrifice any physical or mental well-being to bring a child into the world. Too bad, it would've given them a great opportunity for personal growth.

On a completely unrelated note, sarcasm isn't forumban worthy, is it?

Well, forgive the newbie for speaking out of turn. I wouldn't say any poster deserves to be harmed, but a little personal experience with complicated pregnancies could possibly help a few people understand a different opinion. However, someone's pointed out that a certain poster here is most likely not female, therefore won't get to sacrifice any physical or mental well-being to bring a child into the world. Too bad, it would've given them a great opportunity for personal growth.

On a completely unrelated note, sarcasm isn't forumban worthy, is it?

Generally, no, which is why I editted my post. I don't usually miss sarcasm, but I can admit my errors when I make them. Like I said, it was mentioned to me and upon seeing it, I laughed. However, I would be careful of posts that may appear over the line. They can get you in trouble and I've seen it. If you're not sure, don't post it. That said, again, I overreacted.

Generally, no, which is why I editted my post. I don't usually miss sarcasm, but I can admit my errors when I make them. Like I said, it was mentioned to me and upon seeing it, I laughed. However, I would be careful of posts that may appear over the line. They can get you in trouble and I've seen it. If you're not sure, don't post it. That said, again, I overreacted.

That's alright, I need to get more in-character with this whole international diplomacy thing. Certain issues just get under my skin.

Glad to have made you laugh, though. :)

If it truly helps her heal, nothing is wrong with at all. However, I think Jocabia was suggesting that her need for one may be indicitive of a larger problem.
a larger problem being? what? that she got attached to her child, that she loved her child, that while she didn't plan to get pregnant when she found out she was overjoyed at the fact? that she had dreams and hopes for the child and when it died those were taken away?

Jessie is pregnant. Thing is, she doesn't want the baby. The pregnancy was an accident.

Bertha is also pregnant. She wants the baby.

Jessie believes that abortion IS OK.

Bertha believes that abortion ISN'T OK.

Bertha believes that her opinion is the correct opinion.

Jessie lets people have their own opinion, and sticks to hers. She realises that morals are basically just opinions of how oneself should behave. Her opinion tells her that it's OK to have an abortion.

Bertha comes along, and tells Jessie that Jessie's opinion is wrong. That her own opinion is correct.

What business of Bertha's is it which opinion Jessie holds? Because really, morals are opinions. And opinions differ.

(And a simple truth is, Bertha, having her own opinion, can't take the fact that someone else disagrees with it, on a basic instinctual level.)

Now we move on to the subject of classifying abortion as murder, and when a human life actually starts.

Jessie believes that human life starts when the baby has a basic level of conciousness. Bertha believes that it starts at conception.

If Bertha's opinion is correct, then abortion is murder.

If Jessie's opinion is correct, then abortion, up to a certain stage, isn't murder.

Hold the phone! I remember something, we've just discussed that opinions differ, and no opinion is really "correct!"

So really, in Jessie's mind, it's not murder at all!

(Now let's say that, hypothetically, the government passes a law that says that life begins at conception. See what's happening? This is someone with legal power forcing their opinions on everybody else, believing them to be, falsely, as all opinion-based cases are, correct.)

Looking at history, there have been more abortions when these are illegal and these abortions have resulted in more deaths.

The logic is rather simple. If someone has made up their mind to have an abortion, then the people with access to legal abortion can discuss this with people who have had them and with the people that perform them. It is likely that at least a few of them will attempt to discourage them from this course of action. The people without access to legal abortion have no one to talk to and cannot be discouraged from their action.

But whether or not this logic is correct, fact stands: There are more abortions when they're illegal. (source: history).

If you remove the reproduction requirement, you are close to the definition of a living organism (so long as the requirements all include that the entire entity does these things). Generally, the requirements used are:

-Obtains and uses nutrients
-Growth and development
-Response to stimuli
-Excretes wastes

I will just make quick point. For something to be classed as alive ( a living thing) it must be able to do all the requirements. If one requirement is not met then it is not technically alive. Otherwise things like mineral crystals would be counted as alive as they meet 6 out of the 7 requirements for life.

On to the question. I peronally believe that abortion is valid untill the foetus has developed its own nervous system, at this point for me I think it is a child. However abortion really shouldn't be used if the pregency is from consential sex and does not threaten the life of the woman. People should take responsibility for their own actions which to me, in these times, people do not do.

But those are my beliefs which I do not expect anyone else to conform to. Untill science is able to define what is a human and at what stage does a group of cells become human then it comes down to peoples personal beliefs. Should peoples beliefs be inshrined in law is another question, though you could argue that all laws are beliefs (ones held by the majority of society).

Jessie is pregnant. Thing is, she doesn't want the baby. The pregnancy was an accident.

Bertha is also pregnant. She wants the baby.

Jessie believes that abortion IS OK.

Bertha believes that abortion ISN'T OK.

Bertha believes that her opinion is the correct opinion.

Jessie lets people have their own opinion, and sticks to hers. She realises that morals are basically just opinions of how oneself should behave. Her opinion tells her that it's OK to have an abortion.

Bertha comes along, and tells Jessie that Jessie's opinion is wrong. That her own opinion is correct.

What business of Bertha's is it which opinion Jessie holds? Because really, morals are opinions. And opinions differ.

(And a simple truth is, Bertha, having her own opinion, can't take the fact that someone else disagrees with it, on a basic instinctual level.)

Now we move on to the subject of classifying abortion as murder, and when a human life actually starts.

Jessie believes that human life starts when the baby has a basic level of conciousness. Bertha believes that it starts at conception.

If Bertha's opinion is correct, then abortion is murder.

If Jessie's opinion is correct, then abortion, up to a certain stage, isn't murder.

Hold the phone! I remember something, we've just discussed that opinions differ, and no opinion is really "correct!"

So really, in Jessie's mind, it's not murder at all!

(Now let's say that, hypothetically, the government passes a law that says that life begins at conception. See what's happening? This is someone with legal power forcing their opinions on everybody else, believing them to be, falsely, as all opinion-based cases are, correct.)

Just a note, I could argue back that in my opinon killing is not wrong. Your opinon that killing is wrong is being forced on me. You could argue then that I am forcing my opinon on the person i killed but what if the person wanted to be killed (it does happen, there was a case in Germany where a guy agreed to be killed and eaten by another guy) but that will still be classed as murder in your society and so forcing your opinions on me. That is why society does not work well with law being based on individual opinions. It is the majority opinion of society that matters and that is what the law is in reality (opinon of majority forced on the minority).

If you remove the reproduction requirement, you are close to the definition of a living organism (so long as the requirements all include that the entire entity does these things). Generally, the requirements used are:

-Obtains and uses nutrients
-Growth and development
-Response to stimuli
-Excretes wastes

I will just make quick point. For something to be classed as alive ( a living thing) it must be able to do all the requirements. If one requirement is not met then it is not technically alive. Otherwise things like mineral crystals would be counted as alive as they meet 6 out of the 7 requirements for life.

On to the question. I peronally believe that abortion is valid untill the foetus has developed its own nervous system, at this point for me I think it is a child. However abortion really shouldn't be used if the pregency is from consential sex and does not threaten the life of the woman. People should take responsibility for their own actions which to me, in these times, people do not do.

But those are my beliefs which I do not expect anyone else to conform to. Untill science is able to define what is a human and at what stage does a group of cells become human then it comes down to peoples personal beliefs. Should peoples beliefs be inshrined in law is another question, though you could argue that all laws are beliefs (ones held by the majority of society).

interesting points. good post. I disagree with most of it, but it will be nice having someone around who actually thinks these things through and explainse them intellegently :)

I get so angry when I see bullshit threads like this. It's quite simple. It is NOT the place of you, me, or anyone else to make descisions for other people. IF there is a god that does indeed consider abortion "murder", then it will be his (and his alone) job to deal with the "sinner" in any supposed afterlife there may or may not be. You can hate abortion all you like, but if you go banning it you, and all those like you, will take that final step into becoming the oppressor. What comes next? Banning condoms? Birth control? Sex? Will you make everyone wear the same color and have the same haircut? What about those evil brown-haired people? What would be next on your list?

Of course it's our place to make decisions for other people. That is how we create laws, to put things on others that we think is right. Not killing your unborn child is one good law to have.

a larger problem being? what? that she got attached to her child, that she loved her child, that while she didn't plan to get pregnant when she found out she was overjoyed at the fact? that she had dreams and hopes for the child and when it died those were taken away?

All things that one should be capable of dealing with in a healthy manner. Let's extend your point and see if you admit there is a point where it doesn't make sense. What if she had a funeral every time they had sex and didn't get pregnant? Is that healthy behavior just because she is disappointed, devestated even? What if she had a funeral if she found out she was sterile, for the children she would have had but can't? Healthy?

Women who are sexually active are often pregnant without knowing it, and miscarry in the first few weeks without ever knowing it.

Technically, we should examine every used feminine hygiene product (pad or tampon) with a microscope to check for miscarried embryos. And if we find one, we should then bury the tampon or pad in a regular, full-scale funeral.

Or not.

Why not? It is what happens when you have sex. Take responsibility and don't kill your child.

Has it occured to you that, if you force people to have a child as a punishment, they may then be abusive to that child later on? This is my main reason for being pro-choice. If a child is unwanted, it is very unlikely that the child will be cared for well and not abused. I'd rather have the child dead before it's even born than fucked up in the head for the rest of his/her life from being beaten every day because they supposedly fucked up the parents' lives.

Of course it's our place to make decisions for other people. That is how we create laws, to put things on others that we think is right. Not killing your unborn child is one good law to have.

Why must you always state your opinion as though it were fact?

Personally, I find 'killing' an 'unborn child' FAR more palatable than the current political climate... for example, a budget passing in the Senate that is going to remove 300,000 of the most needy from food assistance programmes.

What we are dealing with, is a mentality that envisions something sacred about life while it is INSIDE another, but let's it starve once it leaves the uterus.

If you remove the reproduction requirement, you are close to the definition of a living organism (so long as the requirements all include that the entire entity does these things). Generally, the requirements used are:

-Obtains and uses nutrients
-Growth and development
-Response to stimuli
-Excretes wastes

I will just make quick point. For something to be classed as alive ( a living thing) it must be able to do all the requirements. *snip*
I would only qualify that the "wastes" must be organic in nature so that other life can benefit from them.

Originally Posted by Utracia
Of course it's our place to make decisions for other people. That is how we create laws, to put things on others that we think is right. Not killing your unborn child is one good law to have.
Why must you always state your opinion as though it were fact?

Personally, I find 'killing' an 'unborn child' FAR more palatable than the current political climate... for example, a budget passing in the Senate that is going to remove 300,000 of the most needy from food assistance programmes.

What we are dealing with, is a mentality that envisions something sacred about life while it is INSIDE another, but let's it starve once it leaves the uterus.
Because that's what it means to have an opinion: to believe that what you say is fact.

Because that's what it means to have an opinion: to believe that what you say is fact.

Ah... I don't object to people believing things... even believing that their own opinions have some kind of greater significance.... but to STATE an opinion as 'fact'...

All I ever hear from Pro-Life people is that the fetus is "a living being". Like a tree? What I'm saying is this, Pro-Life people really only care about what they think is "moral" and "right", well, if you're worried about the loss of morality in this country, howabout talking to folks like George Bush and his ilk? How does someone else doing something to THEIR child effect you in any way? Mind your own god damn business, if you're not happy enough with your own beliefs, then screw off. What I do in my life is my problem, not your's.

All I ever hear from Pro-Life people is that the fetus is "a living being". Like a tree? What I'm saying is this, Pro-Life people really only care about what they think is "moral" and "right", well, if you're worried about the loss of morality in this country, howabout talking to folks like George Bush and his ilk? How does someone else doing something to THEIR child effect you in any way? Mind your own god damn business, if you're not happy enough with your own beliefs, then screw off. What I do in my life is my problem, not your's.

While I might not have phrased it QUITE like this, Hydrogen HAS a point. The Republican Party is an example of a party that thinks itself 'conservative' (which would imply reducing goverment interference), but actually acts more like a Fundamentalism (basing policy on a scriptural interpretation).

It is MOST frustrating, because Republicans will decry the same 'model', if it is in Iran...

Now, I am an avid pro life person. I believe strongly that a fetus is a human life. There is a lot of evidence to support that, but, I still dont understand why people are prochoice.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.

Well there are many:
Religious reasons such the baby doesn't have a permanent soul until it takes its first breath. Which can only be done after being born.
You can't kill something without a soul.

I mean in the old testament, it was a fine if you caused a women to miscarriage (small fine too): you also had to say sorry, but if the women okay'd it in the case of abortion than I'd assume no punishment even.

Next we have individual free agency: It is a women's choice. Why should she have to carry a raper's sperm/fetus for 9 months?

She would have no issue giving it away right away but to do that would kill the fetus (Since it takes a few months before fetus is vaiabile to live outside). So you either steal her freedom or say it is okay to abort.

After that is the sitauation that means:
--You think she is worth less than the fetus or not?

1) If you think she is worth less than the fetus: I can understand your resolve to force her to have fetus for 9 months.

2) If she worth the same than she still has the right to remove the fetus (not neccssarily abort but it would probably die outside).

3) If worth more than the fetus: She has the right to definately remove the fetus or abort.

Now we might have agreement that Rape is an exception. If so good. It is in the law too.

Just a note, I could argue back that in my opinon killing is not wrong. Your opinon that killing is wrong is being forced on me. You could argue then that I am forcing my opinon on the person i killed but what if the person wanted to be killed (it does happen, there was a case in Germany where a guy agreed to be killed and eaten by another guy) but that will still be classed as murder in your society and so forcing your opinions on me. That is why society does not work well with law being based on individual opinions. It is the majority opinion of society that matters and that is what the law is in reality (opinon of majority forced on the minority).

The difference, of course, is that when you murder someone you infringe on their civil rights.

However, when a woman exercises here inherent civil liberty to decide what is done with her own body and terminates an unborn child she infringes on no person's rights whatsoever, so there is absolutely no justification for the enactment of laws to curtail such a practise. On the contrary, such a law against abortion would grievously violate a woman's rights.

Society works best when left to the opinions of the individual. Leave laws to ensure civil liberties aren't compromised, don't try to legislate on your own particular flavour of morality.

Who gives a damn whether it's a human life or not? The sad fact is it's going to turn into a screaming ba if you don't get rid of it, and in my opinion that's a very bad thing.

The OP - and others, of course - can't understand why people are pro-choice. I can't understand why anyone would want children, or why everyone isn't all-out pro-abortion. But the difference is I don't try and preach at those who disagree with me.

Ah... I don't object to people believing things... even believing that their own opinions have some kind of greater significance.... but to STATE an opinion as 'fact'...
In case you hadn't noticed, that is the common mode of stating opinion; "as if" fact.

Just a note, I could argue back that in my opinon killing is not wrong. Your opinon that killing is wrong is being forced on me. You could argue then that I am forcing my opinon on the person i killed but what if the person wanted to be killed (it does happen, there was a case in Germany where a guy agreed to be killed and eaten by another guy) but that will still be classed as murder in your society and so forcing your opinions on me. That is why society does not work well with law being based on individual opinions. It is the majority opinion of society that matters and that is what the law is in reality (opinon of majority forced on the minority).

If I wanted to be killed, either generally or in a specific way, then I reckon it really isn't anyone's business whether I am or not.

I don't condone murder because it is the interference with another man's ability to actually have an opinion.

Whilst it's correct that laws based on individual opinions do not work, neither do what I'll dub "majority laws," as there'll be dissent, and... well, I've already explained this in my previous post. What works best is when you have laws that apply to everybody, but are individualist.

I will just make quick point. For something to be classed as alive ( a living thing) it must be able to do all the requirements.

And the requirements for being alive do not require reproduction (unless you are going to claim that mules are not alive, or sterile people are not alive). The rules for being a species require a method of reproduction.

If one requirement is not met then it is not technically alive. Otherwise things like mineral crystals would be counted as alive as they meet 6 out of the 7 requirements for life.

There are no set-in-stone "requirements for life". Some biologists use 5. Some use 7. Even then, non-living things (like fire, for instance) can meet all of the requirements. We do the best we can. As a biologist, I can see that using the reprodcution requirement for an individual living organism, rather than for a species, is illogical - it excludes too many organisms that no one would dispute as living.

In case you hadn't noticed, that is the common mode of stating opinion; "as if" fact.

And Britney Spears is a top ten 'artist'.

Just because it's popular, doesn't make it right.

If I wanted to be killed, either generally or in a specific way, then I reckon it really isn't anyone's business whether I am or not.

I don't condone murder because it is the interference with another man's ability to actually have an opinion.

Whilst it's correct that laws based on individual opinions do not work, neither do what I'll dub "majority laws," as there'll be dissent, and... well, I've already explained this in my previous post. What works best is when you have laws that apply to everybody, but are individualist.

I agree, thankyou for the correction, though i still believe that at the moment the majority of laws used are the majority opinion based rather than individualist.

And the requirements for being alive do not require reproduction (unless you are going to claim that mules are not alive, or sterile people are not alive). The rules for being a species require a method of reproduction.



There are no set-in-stone "requirements for life". Some biologists use 5. Some use 7. Even then, non-living things (like fire, for instance) can meet all of the requirements. We do the best we can. As a biologist, I can see that using the reprodcution requirement for an individual living organism, rather than for a species, is illogical - it excludes too many organisms that no one would dispute as living.

I bow to your better knowledge on the subject as I have not done biology since GCSE (when i was 16) as my leaning is towards physics.:cool:

However, when a woman exercises here inherent civil liberty to decide what is done with her own body and terminates an unborn child she infringes on no person's rights whatsoever, so there is absolutely no justification for the enactment of laws to curtail such a practise. On the contrary, such a law against abortion would grievously violate a woman's rights.

Society works best when left to the opinions of the individual. Leave laws to ensure civil liberties aren't compromised, don't try to legislate on your own particular flavour of morality.

You infringe on the embryo's right to exist.

and by not making pedophilia legal we are encouraging kidnapping.

I know this is from pages and pages back,but peadophilia is legal.its the child porn and having sex with children thats legal.

You infringe on the embryo's right to exist.

The rights of a non-person, if the exist at all (which I'd argue they don't) do not ever overide the rights of a person.

The rights of a non-person, if the exist at all (which I'd argue they don't) do not ever overide the rights of a person.

The rights of the non person (if it is indeed a non person) in this case are being more greatly infringed upon than the life of the person. The right to exist is superior than the right to your body. Besides, as far as I am aware there is no such right as 'right to control body' in the American Constution.

The rights of the non person (if it is indeed a non person) in this case are being more greatly infringed upon than the life of the person. The right to exist is superior than the right to your body. Besides, as far as I am aware there is no such right as 'right to control body' in the American Constution.

The right to decide to determine what happens to oneself is perhaps the most fundamental of all rights, from which the right to life is derived.

The non-person's "rights" are irrelevant since they don't exist, non-people don't have the right to exist.

The right to control ones own body is implied by the Constitution which is based on the theory of liberal civil rights.

The rights of the non person (if it is indeed a non person) in this case are being more greatly infringed upon than the life of the person. The right to exist is superior than the right to your body. Besides, as far as I am aware there is no such right as 'right to control body' in the American Constution.

In that case, the rights of a pig (non-person) to exist are superior to the right of any human to eat it? You must be some hardcore vegetarian...

The right to decide to determine what happens to oneself is perhaps the most fundamental of all rights, from which the right to life is derived.

The non-person's "rights" are irrelevant since they don't exist, non-people don't have the right to exist.

The embryo is turning into a person, like it or not. It is alive and a human, a seperate organisim from its mother.


The right to control ones own body is implied by the Constitution which is based on the theory of liberal civil rights.

So the embryo's right to exist goes above the womans right to control? Espeically since the loss of control is temporary but the lack of existance is perminant. And an implyed right to control goes above a stated right to life. In every area so far abortion is more an infringement on the embryo's rights than curtailing abortion is on the womens rights

In that case, the rights of a pig (non-person) to exist are superior to the right of any human to eat it? You must be some hardcore vegetarian...

Animals dont have the same rights as humans

The embryo is turning into a person, like it or not. It is alive and a human, a seperate organisim from its mother.
Irrelevant, I'm afraid. We grant rights to things that are people, not things that could turn into people.

Surely the rights of a person would outway the "rights" of something "capable of turning into a person".


So the embryo's right to exist goes above the womans right to control? Espeically since the loss of control is temporary but the lack of existance is perminant.
Perhaps you didn't understand the point I made that these unalienable rights refer only to people? Furthermore, no persons rights "go above" another persons rights, but since an embryo isn't a person its a moot point.

The embryo is turning into a person, like it or not.

"Turning into a person" != "Is a person"

It is alive and a human, a seperate organisim from its mother.

Actually, it is rather difficult to argue that it is an organism at all until it has developed a rudimentary nervous system and can thus sense and respond to stimuli (at which point it has already become a fetus, and is not an embryo). Pretty much all biologists agree that an entity must be able to sense and respond to stimuli to be considered a living organism.

So the embryo's right to exist goes above the womans right to control? Espeically since the loss of control is temporary

The "loss of control" is not temporary. Irreversible changes are made to the woman's body. Thus, the "loss of control" exists for the rest of her life.

And an implyed right to control goes above a stated right to life.

Where is this "right to life" of a potential human being stated?

In every area so far abortion is more an infringement on the embryo's rights than curtailing abortion is on the womens rights

Where are the "embryo's rights" laid out?

Animals dont have the same rights as humans

This wasn't about humans, but about persons and non-persons.

Irrelevant, I'm afraid. We grant rights to things that are people, not things that could turn into people.

Surely the rights of a person would outway the "rights" of something "capable of turning into a person".

Rights are given on the basis of capacity. IE The reason that a child is given the right to vote at 18 rather than earlier is because it is felt that untill they are 18 they are not able to make an informed decision. The right to life is given when someone is alive. Given that you are unable to prove that the embryo is dead, it is grated the right to life.


Perhaps you didn't understand the point I made that these unalienable rights refer only to people? Furthermore, no persons rights "go above" another persons rights, but since an embryo isn't a person its a moot point.

If one persons rights are threatend in a small way to avoid a second persons rights being threatend in a big way, I think it does go over

- The womans loss of control over her body is temporary
- The right to control of body is not stated in the US Constitution
Whereas
- The embryos loss of existance is permant
- The right to life is stated by the US Constiution

Face it. The embryo is alive. It has a right to life. Illegailisng abortion is the only way to protect that right since it cannot protect itself.

"Turning into a person" != "Is a person"

Can you prove that an embryo is dead? If not your point is moot


Actually, it is rather difficult to argue that it is an organism at all until it has developed a rudimentary nervous system and can thus sense and respond to stimuli (at which point it has already become a fetus, and is not an embryo). Pretty much all biologists agree that an entity must be able to sense and respond to stimuli to be considered a living organism.

See seperate genetic material. Senseativity is not one of the major chaterstics to be considered a seperate entity.


The "loss of control" is not temporary. Irreversible changes are made to the woman's body. Thus, the "loss of control" exists for the rest of her life.

Better her life irriversably changed than someone else not have a life at all.


Where is this "right to life" of a potential human being stated?

Can you actually prove where it becomes a human and when it doesnt? No. We cannot make that decision for the fetus if we dont know.


Where are the "embryo's rights" laid out?

Right along with everyone elses rights

Rights are given on the basis of capacity. IE The reason that a child is given the right to vote at 18 rather than earlier is because it is felt that untill they are 18 they are not able to make an informed decision. The right to life is given when someone is alive. Given that you are unable to prove that the embryo is dead, it is grated the right to life.

Nope, all rights may only be granted to people, not non-people. It makes no difference what the embryo is, it has no rights.

If one persons rights are threatend in a small way to avoid a second persons rights being threatend in a big way, I think it does go over

It does not. You don't have to have your rights infringed in order to benefit me. That's absurd. You don't have to incovenience yourself in even the smallest way so that I can live.

- The womans loss of control over her body is temporary
Not relevant even if it were true. The violation of a right is a violation of a right, temporary or not.

- The right to control of body is not stated in the US Constitution
If one doesn't even have the right to dictate what occurs within ones own body then one doesn't have any rights at all. Civil liberties as a whole would be a joke. The US is supposedly founded on the rights of the individual.

- The embryos loss of existance is permant
But it isn't a person so it doesn't matter.

Face it. The embryo is alive. It has a right to life.
Even if it is alive it doesn't give it a right to life. Only people have that right.

Better her life irriversably changed than someone else not have a life at all.
What a disgusting medieval attitude. I don't know how many times you need this said to you, a women is not a breeding factory and under no obligation to ensure a child is born.

Consider this "discussion" over.

- The womans loss of control over her body is temporary
- The right to control of body is not stated in the US Constitution
Whereas
- The embryos loss of existance is permant
- The right to life is stated by the US Constiution

Face it. The embryo is alive. It has a right to life. Illegailisng abortion is the only way to protect that right since it cannot protect itself.

a few things... Is this discussion only about US or other counties aswell? Becouse if it is I have to read up on the swedish constitution which I know nothing about :P

On the other hand... Why do you care about an organism, that could grow up to be a human, who hasnt even developed consciousness?

As I see it, the most people who make abortions realize that the cant take care of the child in a good way. And its better for society too, studies show that if you get legal and free abortions and wait 20 years the crime rate is waaaaaay lower.

So people, if your pro choice, please, post a few good, hard, backed up reasons here. Dont make four word posts like "its not a life" or "its the womans choice". I ask you post a logical argument.
I am pro-choice because:

1. I think that the current illegality of abortion in Ireland, where I live, is responsible for the large number of welfare mothers we have. They are forced to have this child who has a crap upbringing because his mother lives on welfare and they stagnate. It's really damaging to society, as well as a waste of state money. If the woman was allowed to abort the child, then she could make something of herself and not be a sponge on welfare.

2. Steven D. Levitt made a convincing argument that abortion significantly reduces future crime rates by aborting future criminals.

http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php


- The right to life is stated by the US Constiution

I'm not even American and I know that this is not the case.

What a disgusting medieval attitude. I don't know how many times you need this said to you, a women is not a breeding factory and under no obligation to ensure a child is born.

Consider this "discussion" over.

She is under an obligation that the child is born because otherwise is killing it. You do not have the right to say what is or is not a person. The fact is, you dont know, and I dont know for certian. However what we both know is that left to itself in its natural state (in a mothers womb) it will develop into what you call a human. However you don't know when it became a human. At conception, at 2 weeks, at 4 weeks etc. You dont have the right to control when that person dies. You dont know if its alive or not so you shouldnt have that control.

Can you prove that an embryo is dead? If not your point is moot

Dead? Of course not! Something has to first be alive to be dead. However, based on the accepted biological requirements for life, an embryo is not alive (which is not the same thing as dead).

See seperate genetic material.

So a chimera is two people? A person who has had a bone marrow or organ transplant is two people? Every single person (as all of our cells are mutated) are several people?

Senseativity is not one of the major chaterstics to be considered a seperate entity.

No, but ability to sense and respond to stimuli is one of the key characteristics to be considered an organism.

Better her life irriversably changed than someone else not have a life at all.

Perhaps, but your "the effect on her is only temporary" argument is bullshit.

Can you actually prove where it becomes a human and when it doesnt? No.

And neither can you. However, you are the one trying to make legislation, so the burden of proof is on you. If you wish to infringe upon a woman's right to her own person, you must provide objective evidence that the embryo/early fetus is undeniably a human person. Since the definition of human person is inherently subjective.......

Right along with everyone elses rights

Personal opinion. If you don't have objective fact to back it up, you haven't a leg to stand on....

She is under an obligation that the child is born because otherwise is killing it. You do not have the right to say what is or is not a person. The fact is, you dont know, and I dont know for certian. However what we both know is that left to itself in its natural state (in a mothers womb) it will develop into what you call a human. However you don't know when it became a human. At conception, at 2 weeks, at 4 weeks etc. You dont have the right to control when that person dies. You dont know if its alive or not so you shouldnt have that control.

No one could possibly argue that an unborn child is a person, but even if it were:

The women does not need to be forced to rent out her womb for its services. She is not a breeding factroy. If it dies, so be it, her right to sovereignty over her body must not be infringed.

a few things... Is this discussion only about US or other counties aswell? Becouse if it is I have to read up on the swedish constitution which I know nothing about :P

On the other hand... Why do you care about an organism, that could grow up to be a human, who hasnt even developed consciousness?

As I see it, the most people who make abortions realize that the cant take care of the child in a good way. And its better for society too, studies show that if you get legal and free abortions and wait 20 years the crime rate is waaaaaay lower.

True, the fetus is acting like a parasite by the defination in any book of a parasite.

It isn't a symbiotic one because it doesn't directly help or benefit you.

Only the Declaration of Independence says God given rights include: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. No Constitution says so.

Otherwise, we would be socialist and give free living/property, etc. But we aren't: we would be way different if that was in constitution.


She is under an obligation that the child is born because otherwise is killing it. You do not have the right to say what is or is not a person. The fact is, you dont know, and I dont know for certian. However what we both know is that left to itself in its natural state (in a mothers womb) it will develop into what you call a human. However you don't know when it became a human. At conception, at 2 weeks, at 4 weeks etc. You dont have the right to control when that person dies. You dont know if its alive or not so you shouldnt have that control.

Who determines natural states? If a parasite bites and gets inside you: you can you remove it?

Can one say that parasite is in its natural state?

When does a fetus (a collection of cells at best till viability) gain the counting of personhood by your beliefs?

Do all cells have personhood? Do have to be careful never to shave (killing cells and people apparently)?


Dead? Of course not! Something has to first be alive to be dead. However, based on the accepted biological requirements for life, an embryo is not alive (which is not the same thing as dead).

Dempublicents1, do count fetuses as more alive than a virus, same or less?

Viruses are also non-alive according to every test of life processes.

And neither can you. However, you are the one trying to make legislation, so the burden of proof is on you. If you wish to infringe upon a woman's right to her own person, you must provide objective evidence that the embryo/early fetus is undeniably a human person. Since the definition of human person is inherently subjective.......


If I have to infringe on a womens right to control of her body to protect right to life of an embryo then so be it. I know which one is more important. The Embryo's right to exist IS the more important right. The embryo did not ask to be put in the postion it is. However a woman (by having sex) does accept that she can loose control of her body. There is no such thing as 100% effective preventative contreception so thus by having sex she is accepting a very small possibilty of having a child. If she is unwilling to accept that posibility then she shouldnt have sex. The possibility naturally is lowered by contreception so thus becomes more paletable (A 10% chance of becoming pregnant being more acceptable than a 50% I mean). The point is also that we do not have a right to play god. We cannot objectivley decide when the embryo is a human life or not. We do not have that kind of right to decide if it is alive or if it isnt or if aborting it at a cetian time is killing it or not. We just dont know, and we dont have the right to decide it. The woman doesnt have the right to play God.