NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey. Personally I'm pro-choice because in my opinion it's none of the government's business what people do with their bodies.

One quick question:
At what point do fetuses become human beings?

When they are born. In my opinion, anyway. I don't know about yours.

Anyway, My question tends to be "If a fetus is gay, will you still fight for it's rights?"

I'm pro death I suppose, pro capital punishment by choice and pro-choice via intentional inaction.

I say post number 5 for the "AW Geez.." photo.



Also, http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

Hey. Personally I'm pro-choice because in my opinion it's none of the government's business what people do with their bodies.

I'm pro life, because while it is not the governments businsess what people do with their own bodies, it is their business what they do to other peoples.

Hardcore pro-life here.

Guys...It's worth mentioning that the "Pro-Death" Option is a joke. Pro-Death basically means you are in favor of death penalty for small infractions and forced-abortions. I doubt many people are for that.

Hardcore pro-life here.

Hehe...Hardcore.


"Subjugating women, TO THE EXTREME!!"

Anti-abortion and pro-choice.
Anti-death penalty, but not because it causes death.

I say I'm pro-choice, but I believe that people choose to have sex and they then choose to use birth control. If they fuck up both of these choices and get pregnant, why should they be trusted with a third choice to end a life? If either of the first two choices are deprived them, as in the case of rape or whatever, then yeah, they should still get a choice.

Anti-pro-life. Not pro-death, as most people should live, after all. Not exactly pro-choice.

But I support abortion of undesired children, as well as abortion of ones with severe defects. And, yes, sometimes capital punishment makes sense, because it is more feared than life sentence.

Hehe...Hardcore.

"Subjugating women, TO THE EXTREME!!"
How is it subjugating women to oppose the death penalty, wars, exploitation, abortion, and to support aiding women in motherhood?

And, yes, sometimes capital punishment makes sense, because it is more feared than life sentence.
I don't think there is any evidence that capital punishment acts more of a deterrent than life in jail.

Guys...It's worth mentioning that the "Pro-Death" Option is a joke. Pro-Death basically means you are in favor of death penalty for small infractions and forced-abortions. I doubt many people are for that.

Oh? Well in one of my two fantisies for the world that'd be a reality. (My two fantasies being, 1. a anarcho-capitalist's wet dream, and 2. A single party dictatorship(me at the helm), everything is owned by the government, including the people (who are classified as a form of livestock), death penalty for any infraction, and forced removal of the reproductive organs for anyone who is directly related to a "subjective person" (and isn't in the party) or those with genectic disabilities.)

What is the point of assuming a "pro-life" stance if you are not also "pro-choice?"

When they are born. In my opinion, anyway. I don't know about yours.

Anyway, My question tends to be "If a fetus is gay, will you still fight for it's rights?"

I don't understand your ulterior motive...are you trying to convict pro-lifers as heartless people who would condemn a gay person? Most pro-life people are Christian, and Christians believe that all life is precious, and a person being gay has nothing to do with whether or not they should live or die.

P. S. Feti can't be gay, as far as pro-abortion people are concerned, as they're not of sentient mind.
P. P. S. People with pro-life standing tend to lean toward the belief that one isn't born gay.

Guys...It's worth mentioning that the "Pro-Death" Option is a joke. Pro-Death basically means you are in favor of death penalty for small infractions and forced-abortions. I doubt many people are for that.
Millions of people in China support exactly that.

"Pro-Choice" as a form of birth control.

I don't understand your ulterior motive...are you trying to convict pro-lifers as heartless people who would condemn a gay person? Most pro-life people are Christian, and Christians believe that all life is precious, and a person being gay has nothing to do with whether or not they should live or die.

You haven't seen Fred Phelps and crew, have you? I agree that Christians *should* believe that sexuality has nothing to do with whether or not a person should live or die, but there are many who do.

I wanted to say Pro-Choice, but I do support the death penalty for proven and clearly intentional murder and only for proven and clearly intentional murder. Anyone who takes another human's life does not deserve a life of their own.

I wanted to say Pro-Choice, but I do support the death penalty for proven and clearly intentional murder and only for proven and clearly intentional murder. Anyone who takes another human's life does not deserve a life of their own.

How do you prove murder that a murder occurred and that it was intentional with 100% certainty?

Without 100% certainty, which our justice system simply doesn't reach, any institution of the death penalty will eventually execute someone who is innocent of the crime they are to die for. And execution of a single innocent person, in my opinion, is absolutely inexcusable.

pro-choice, as a fetus cannot think for it's self, and is therefor, by deff, an animal. also pro death.

You haven't seen Fred Phelps and crew, have you? I agree that Christians *should* believe that sexuality has nothing to do with whether or not a person should live or die, but there are many who do.

Seeing as he is not in the front lines for being pro-life, your remark was irrelevent. He has no right to classify himself as a Baptist, or any other kind of Christian.

I'm in favor of abortion rights and I loathe the death penalty.

I'm pro-choice on abortion, however I don't think that any male opinion should ever be taken into account when legislation is made regarding it unless they are pro-choice. What right does a man have to dictate to a women what she can of can't do to her body? If abortion is legal then all women have the choice to do what they want.

I'm against the death penalty, it simply costs too much to enforce.

I'm pro-choice on abortion, however I don't think that any male opinion should ever be taken into account when legislation is made regarding it unless they are pro-choice. What right does a man have to dictate to a women what she can of can't do to her body? If abortion is legal then all women have the choice to do what they want.

I'm against the death penalty, it simply costs too much to enforce.

You are a truly heartless person! And what makes it worse is that you try to remedy your callousness by talking about women's rights. Oh, look at me, I'm a girl, look at my body. Pitiful.

Guys...It's worth mentioning that the "Pro-Death" Option is a joke. Pro-Death basically means you are in favor of death penalty for small infractions and forced-abortions. I doubt many people are for that.

Now you tell me! I thought you meant "In favor of killing everyone."


Cause that is what I am.

Seeing as he is not in the front lines for being pro-life, your remark was irrelevent. He has no right to classify himself as a Baptist, or any other kind of Christian.

He is an extreme example, and was meant as such. But I have met many who tend towards his beliefs, all of whom call themselves, "Christian."

Meanwhile, he has just as much right as any other person to classify himself as whatever he wants. He believes himself to be a Christian. He believes himself to follow Christ. Most of us disagree with him, but that doesn't mean he "has no right" to classify himself as Christian.

You are a truly heartless person! And what makes it worse is that you try to remedy your callousness by talking about women's rights. Oh, look at me, I'm a girl, look at my body. Pitiful.

Dude I'm a guy.

What about the post is heartless?

I'm pro-choice on abortion, however I don't think that any male opinion should ever be taken into account when legislation is made regarding it unless they are pro-choice. What right does a man have to dictate to a women what she can of can't do to her body? If abortion is legal then all women have the choice to do what they want.

I'm against the death penalty, it simply costs too much to enforce.

That's bias. I believe no man has the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. If women vote for pro-life, that's on them.

That's bias. I believe no man has the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. If women vote for pro-life, that's on them.

Pro-choice does not mean "pro-abortion", it means that the man believes it is the woman's choice.

He probably worded it poorly, but men that are pro-choice may be allowed into the discussion because they will immediately remove themselves from the discussion.

That's bias. I believe no man has the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. If women vote for pro-life, that's on them.

Damn right it's bias. Once the law is passed then women can make a choice on it individually, medical care is a place where I think we should avoid a one size fits all policy at all costs.

Dude I'm a guy.

What about the post is heartless?

You are against the death penalty NOT because it kills people, but because it's expensive. This reflects the true aesthetics of liberalism in America.

That's bias. I believe no man has the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. If women vote for pro-life, that's on them.

LOL, what makes one woman qualified to tell others what they can do with their bodies?

I'm pro-choice on abortion, however I don't think that any male opinion should ever be taken into account when legislation is made regarding it unless they are pro-choice. What right does a man have to dictate to a women what she can of can't do to her body? If abortion is legal then all women have the choice to do what they want.

The problem with this viewpoint is that it's
a) undemocratic
b) wrongly presumes that it is entirely a matter of the individual's body. not everybody agrees on that

What right does a man have to dictate to a women what she can of can't do to her body? .

The point is that no one has the right to dictate that, men or other women. That's the point of Pro-Choice.

Pro-choice does not mean "pro-abortion", it means that the man believes it is the woman's choice.

He probably worded it poorly, but men that are pro-choice may be allowed into the discussion because they will immediately remove themselves from the discussion.

The Pro-choice men who hang out at the abortion clinic are all fat and gross. They make me depressed for the future.

You are against the death penalty NOT because it kills people, but because it's expensive. This reflects the true aesthetics of liberalism in America.

Great, you're batting 0 for 2 at the minute. I'm English and I don't consider myself to be a liberal, my politics are left wing ;)

On abortion, I believe it to be a necessary evil. I think that we should find ways to make abortions unnecessary, rather than simply ban it. This would mean increasing access to contraceptives, providing financial aid to poor expectant mothers, among other things.

As for the death penalty, I support it, but I think that the process needs to be streamlined and given an overhaul. Also, if the death penalty is to be an option, we must have rigorous standards of proof to ensure that innocents are not executed. Of course, we cannot be 100% certain, but we must have high standards.
Oh, and I do not believe that you should be executed for any crime save murder or treason. Throw the rapists (especially the child molesters) in with the general population.

Pro-choice does not mean "pro-abortion", it means that the man believes it is the woman's choice.

He probably worded it poorly, but men that are pro-choice may be allowed into the discussion because they will immediately remove themselves from the discussion.

But it's wrong to eliminate 50% of the population from one side of the debate and not the other.

LOL, what makes one woman qualified to tell others what they can do with their bodies?
Called a representitive democracy, look it up.

Damn right it's bias. Once the law is passed then women can make a choice on it individually, medical care is a place where I think we should avoid a one size fits all policy at all costs.

The end justifies the means?

The problem with this viewpoint is that it's
a) undemocratic
b) wrongly presumes that it is entirely a matter of the individual's body. not everybody agrees on that

a) who said anything about democracy? This decision should be left up to the woman alone, it's her body after all.
b) no, but the op asked for my opinion.

The Pro-choice men who hang out at the abortion clinic are all fat and gross. They make me depressed for the future.

Perhaps you should be contemplating suicide.

Great, you're batting 0 for 2 at the minute. I'm English and I don't consider myself to be a liberal, my politics are left wing ;)

What does that have to do with anything? You have the same ideals as the liberals in America. Saying Roman art reflects that of earlier Greek art is not saying it is Greek. It is saying it is like Greek, and came out of it (though this detail isn't necessary to the analogy).

But it's wrong to eliminate 50% of the population from one side of the debate and not the other.

Not when the debate does not concern them.

pro choice

anti death penalty

Not when the debate does not concern them.

If one side doesn't concern them then neither does the other.

If one side doesn't concern them then neither does the other.

Ya lost me.

Perhaps you should be contemplating suicide.

And give them the satisfaction? No way. I'm just saying they don't make me want to become "Pro-choice". It's not because I'm shallow...it's because I know they believe what they do so they won't have another mouth to feed and can have all the potato chips to themselves.

And give them the satisfaction? No way. I'm just saying they don't make me want to become "Pro-choice". It's not because I'm shallow...it's because I know they believe what they do so they won't have another mouth to feed and can have all the potato chips to themselves.

If they were smart they would advocate forced sterilization of women. Pregnant women can eat.

What does that have to do with anything? You have the same ideals as the liberals in America. Saying Roman art reflects that of earlier Greek art is not saying it is Greek. It is saying it is like Greek, and came out of it (though this detail isn't necessary to the analogy).

It has a lot to do with our discourse. You used my post to try and accuse American liberals of being morally bankrupt, the fact I'm neither American nor a liberal is extremely important.

Ya lost me.

Discriminating of the basis of opinion smacks of crimethink. And that scares me.

Hey. Personally I'm pro-choice because in my opinion it's none of the government's business what people do with their bodies.
Abortion is between the doctor, the patient and their God(s).

I have zero right to interfere. I do believe that there needs to be more education and hopefully that will reduce the need for abortions.

Called a representitive democracy, look it up.

Luckily, most such governments have some sort of limit on what the mob can decide on.

Of course, it really doesn't answer the question. If men cannot have a say in what women do with their bodies, why can other women? In either case, you're talking about one person dictating the use of another's body.

Luckily, most such governments have some sort of limit on what the mob can decide on.

Which is why they suck.:(

I personally think that abortion should be legal for only a certain period of time at the beggining of the pregnancy (I think it's sort of like that now, but the time period needs to be reduced in my opinion), and that the abortion should only be done in cases of medical emergencies. If a woman doesn't want the child, then there are plenty of other people who are looking for children because they can't have them on their own.

As far as the death penalty goes, I like Texas's method that Ron White refered to as the "express lane" in one of his acts. If there are a certain number of eye witnesses, I say zap their assess within six months of their conviction. My thing is, if we just give them life in prison, then my tax dollars are going to be paying for the room and board, and unless they're Bubba's piece of ass, most prisoners have it better than the free people.

You are against the death penalty NOT because it kills people, but because it's expensive. This reflects the true aesthetics of liberalism in America.

Indeed, in all too many cases.

It has a lot to do with our discourse. You used my post to try and accuse American liberals of being morally bankrupt, the fact I'm neither American nor a liberal is extremely important.

No it isn't. You have the same ideas as the liberal Americans. Say something "warm-hearted" that people want to hear, then make known that you possess the willingness to do anything for money, because after a tolerant comment like that, anyone who criticises you is a racist, or worse, an omnivore.

Which is why they suck.:(

Mob rule all the way, huh?

I personally think that abortion should be legal for only a certain period of time at the beggining of the pregnancy (I think it's sort of like that now, but the time period needs to be reduced in my opinion), and that the abortion should only be done in cases of medical emergencies. If a woman doesn't want the child, then there are plenty of other people who are looking for children because they can't have them on their own.

I don't disagree in general principle, but I would like to point out a problem with this argument. There are plenty of people who are looking for children because they can't have them on their own. And there are already plenty of children who have no parents to look after them. The people who spend years trying to adopt do so, not because women have abortions, but because those people so often refuse to adopt a child that isn't a perfectly healthy, ethnicity-matched infant.

As far as the death penalty goes, I like Texas's method that Ron White refered to as the "express lane" in one of his acts. If there are a certain number of eye witnesses, I say zap their assess within six months of their conviction.

Because eyewitnesses are never mistaken/lying?

My thing is, if we just give them life in prison, then my tax dollars are going to be paying for the room and board, and unless they're Bubba's piece of ass, most prisoners have it better than the free people.

And if you give them the death penalty, your tax dollars are going to be paying to get a lot of lawyers very rich - and more of them are going to be spent on the case than keeping the guy in prison for the rest of his life.

Discriminating of the basis of opinion smacks of crimethink. And that scares me.

This is discrimination based on interest and consequence. Men have no vested interested nor bear any of the consequences for this particular decision. There is no reason for them to weigh in on the debate.

No it isn't. You have the same ideas as the liberal Americans. Say something "warm-hearted" that people want to hear, then make known that you possess the willingness to do anything for money, because after a tolerant comment like that, anyone who criticises you is a racist, or worse, an omnivore.


I like the way you read my answer to to first question where I'm pro-choice and assume that I'm a liberal and then ignore the suggestion in my second answer of extreme fiscal responsability pointing towards a conservative view point. Then you insult me by calling me American.

The effect of my two answers together hadn't even occured to my as I considered them to be two different answers to two different questions. I think what we need to be examining here are you're predjudices.

I like the way you read my answer to to first question where I'm pro-choice and assume that I'm a liberal and then ignore the suggestion in my second answer of extreme fiscal responsability pointing towards a conservative view point. Then you insult me by calling me American.

The effect of my two answers together hadn't even occured to my as I considered them to be two different answers to two different questions. I think what we need to be examining here are you're predjudices.

I like the way you misconstrue things. I never called you American. I said your viewpoints are similar to those of liberal Americans. To mention prejudices, I don't know which I have, but I know yours. You are prejudiced against Americans. You are also prejudiced against conservatives. This is obvious and you have used in your previous post the same kind of propoganda to express your dislike for them that the News Media uses.

This is discrimination based on interest and consequence. Men have no vested interested nor bear any of the consequences for this particular decision. There is no reason for them to weigh in on the debate.

I think men should have a say if it's in order to save the child's life...that would mean he'd have to support it. After all, why should men have a duty to the baby after it's born, and no say in whether it's born?

I like the way you misconstrue things. I never called you American. I said your viewpoints are similar to those of liberal Americans. To mention prejudices, I don't know which I have, but I know yours. You are prejudiced against Americans. You are also prejudiced against conservatives. This is obvious and you have used in your previous post the same kind of propoganda to express your dislike for them that the News Media uses.

How does saying, "I have conservative viewpoints concerning fiscal responsibility," express prejudice against conservatives?


that would mean he'd have to support it. After all, why should men have a duty to the baby after it's born, and no say in whether it's born?

Because parents have duties to their children, and men do not own women's bodies. The only way to give him a "say" in whether or not a woman continues a pregnancy would be to give him the right to control her body - and that, my dear, is called slavery.

I like the way you misconstrue things. I never called you American. I said your viewpoints are similar to those of liberal Americans. To mention prejudices, I don't know which I have, but I know yours. You are prejudiced against Americans. You are also prejudiced against conservatives. This is obvious and you have used in your previous post the same kind of propoganda to express your dislike for them that the News Media uses.

How does my post show a dislike of conservatives? Would you not be insulted as an American if I called you French or do you have no national pride?

You are a truly heartless person! And what makes it worse is that you try to remedy your callousness by talking about women's rights. Oh, look at me, I'm a girl, look at my body. Pitiful.

I REALLY hope that that was sarcasm. What is pitiful about that statement?!? She just said that se thought it should be the women's choice.

I REALLY hope that that was sarcasm. What is pitiful about that statement?!? She just said that se thought it should be the women's choice.

I'm a guy goddamn it. Seriously, how many women would have a handle like fartsniffage?

How does saying, "I have conservative viewpoints concerning fiscal responsibility," express prejudice against conservatives?

It's quite obvious. you use a bad example of something that saves money, and say, "well, it's economically efficient, so it's conservative." I suppose I may have taken this in the wrong way, but by gosh, I'm so used to hearing conservative-bashing I was expecting it.

Anyway, that really isn't what the fiscal conservative's mentality is, and your statement wasn't true, anyway. It costs more to keep a criminal than kill one. At least, the actual killing doesn't cost that much. It probably costs a lot for criminals to keep getting re-trials.



Because parents have duties to their children, and men do not own women's bodies. The only way to give him a "say" in whether or not a woman continues a pregnancy would be to give him the right to control her body - and that, my dear, is called slavery.

yes, the parent has a duty to his child. That means he should intervene to save the child. It's not simply about the woman's body, and if she cared so much about privacy to her body she wouldn't have gotten herself into this mess in the first place to be using that excuse.

I don't know what you get out of calling it "slavery" to a young girl, when she's so impressionable. Are you trying to get me to believe that I never become intimately involved with a man, because we will always be selfish and protective over our bodies, even after we've made a vow and an act to identify our bodies physically and spiritually as one? Are you saying a married woman doesn't own her husband's body, and he doesn't own hers? Are you calling marriage "slavery"? What do you get out of this? Are you making a pass at me?

How does my post show a dislike of conservatives? Would you not be insulted as an American if I called you French or do you have no national pride?

I'm glad we both hate the French.

Not when the debate does not concern them.
Human rights concern everybody.

I'm glad we both hate the French.

I don't hate the French.

You didn't answer my question, where in the post we are discussing did I say I disliked conservatives or conservative values?

This is discrimination based on interest and consequence. Men have no vested interested nor bear any of the consequences for this particular decision. There is no reason for them to weigh in on the debate.

Then they shouldn't be able to vote pro choice or pro life.

Human rights concern everybody.

How can a debate over an organ I don't have concern me?

I don't hate the French.

You didn't answer my question, where in the post we are discussing did I say I disliked conservatives or conservative values?

If you read the long post, I answered it.

I thought England and America really did have something in common after all.

Then they shouldn't be able to vote pro choice or pro life.

Why not? If you vote pro-choice then you don't remove options from anyone. Someone opposed to abortion can still not go get one.

How can a debate over an organ I don't have concern me?

Seeing as I have neither a penis nor testicles, it makes no difference to me whether or not people should continue research on fighting cancer of the testes.

If you read the long post, I answered it.

No you didn't, you answered a quote by someone else who actually quoted me wrong. I'm asking you to look at the actual post I made.

Seeing as I have neither a penis nor testicles, it makes no difference to me whether or not people should continue research on fighting cancer of the testes.

Yupp.

Why not? If you vote pro-choice then you don't remove options from anyone. Someone opposed to abortion can still not go get one.

But according to some you are removing the baby's right to life.

But according to some you are removing the baby's right to life.

How does another person they are unrelated to and don't know dying affect them?

No you didn't, you answered a quote by someone else who actually quoted me wrong. I'm asking you to look at the actual post I made.

what you're saying is being a fiscal conservative is the same as being a conservative. money is only part of it. it sounded like you were suggesting that conservatives kill for money.

How does another person they are unrelated to and don't know dying affect them?

i know, totally. After the Tsunami, I was like, "What the hell? Why are we helping them? We don't know who they are." And the whole Saddam Hussein thing? If he wants to kill people, whatever. It doesn't affect me. I mean, after the Tsunami, it was more like, I need the food they're giving away to hobos in Asia. And I am a tax-paying American citizen, so by golly they better stop wasting that food.

How can a debate over an organ I don't have concern me?
Developed foetuses have hearts, brains, etc. I'm sure you do too.

How does another person they are unrelated to and don't know dying affect them?
This could be used as an argument for murder. I am in favour of investigating and imprisoning murderers even if I didn't know their victims.

what you're saying is being a fiscal conservative is the same as being a conservative. money is only part of it. it sounded like you were suggesting that conservatives kill for money.

I like the way you read my answer to to first question where I'm pro-choice and assume that I'm a liberal and then ignore the suggestion in my second answer of extreme fiscal responsability pointing towards a conservative view point. Then you insult me by calling me American.

The effect of my two answers together hadn't even occured to my as I considered them to be two different answers to two different questions. I think what we need to be examining here are you're predjudices.

Fine, I'll quote what I said so we can both look at it. I said that my answer suggested a conservative view point due to its' fiscal responsability. You managed to read some kind of insult to conservatives into this.

What I really want to know is why you were so keen to focus on one of my answers and not the other while you decided my political allegiences.

i know, totally. After the Tsunami, I was like, "What the hell? Why are we helping them? We don't know who they are." And the whole Saddam Hussein thing? If he wants to kill people, whatever. It doesn't affect me. I mean, after the Tsunami, it was more like, I need the food they're giving away to hobos in Asia. And I am a tax-paying American citizen, so by golly they better stop wasting that food.

Most of the aid that went to Asia was from donations, people chose to help them and didn't have it force on them by legislation. This is exactly what I think should happen with abortion, it should be a persons choice.

We shouldn't have touched Iraq but I'm nnot getting into that debate.

This could be used as an argument for murder. I am in favour of investigating and imprisoning murderers even if I didn't know their victims.

A murder is a crime against society, a fully functioning and productive human being is taken out of circulation. An abortion is destroying a collection of cells that can't exsist away from the mothers body, a parasite.

It's hard to compare the two.

Fine, I'll quote what I said so we can both look at it. I said that my answer suggested a conservative view point due to its' fiscal responsability. You managed to read some kind of insult to conservatives into this.

actually, it seemed much like the propoganda I find in the News. You said something seemingly shallow, then claimed that you said it because it fits in with the views of the conservatives, as it is financially efficient (which it isn't). You were saying that the fact that a criminal has killed people is eclipsed by the fact that it's expensive to have him executed.

What I really want to know is why you were so keen to focus on one of my answers and not the other while you decided my political allegiences.

you're going to have to explain this. It's still confusing me.

A murder is a crime against society, a fully functioning and productive human being is taken out of circulation. An abortion is destroying a collection of cells that can't exsist away from the mothers body, a parasite.

It's hard to compare the two.

"How does another person they are unrelated to and don't know dying affect them?"

The "they" is obviously referring pro-life people, but at the same time, your statement in general has many loopholes. You are basically saying, "How can one care when a person they are unrelated to and don't know dies?"

Note that you also said "person", not "a collection of cells that can't exsist away from the mothers body, a parasite", as you so called it. You never said anything about feti. You were making an analogy, but it was not a strict analogy.

Also note that homeless people are usually neither "fully functioning" nor "productive". Most are crazy and usually lie around drunk or complaining. So if someone kills a homeless person, does it matter? Liberals really are hypocrites...

actually, it seemed much like the propoganda I find in the News. You said something seemingly shallow, then claimed that you said it because it fits in with the views of the conservatives, as it is financially efficient (which it isn't). You were saying that the fact that a criminal has killed people is eclipsed by the fact that it's expensive to have him executed.

It's a fact that executing a person cost more than life imprisonment. The court fees alone run into the millions. This makes it financially more responsable to lock the guy up than to kill him.

I never said it was a conservative viewpoint, simply that it gives the impression of one.

you're going to have to explain this. It's still confusing me.

I gave two answers, each implying a different political viewpoint, you chose one of them to represent my whole political ideaology and I want to know why.

In fact looking back, the two would imply that I'm a Libertarian rather that a Liberal.

It's a fact that executing a person cost more than life imprisonment. The court fees alone run into the millions. This makes it financially more responsable to lock the guy up than to kill him.

I never said it was a conservative viewpoint, simply that it gives the impression of one.



I gave two answers, each implying a different political viewpoint, you chose one of them to represent my whole political ideaology and I want to know why.

In fact looking back, the two would imply that I'm a Libertarian rather that a Liberal.

I usually find liberals to be rather mean in their ideas. That is why I found what you said liberal. I don't libertarian fits into this, and this is a stupid argument and has nothing to do with the right to life and if we talk about anything at all not related to it, it should and will be about crumpets and tea.

It's quite obvious. you use a bad example of something that saves money, and say, "well, it's economically efficient, so it's conservative." I suppose I may have taken this in the wrong way, but by gosh, I'm so used to hearing conservative-bashing I was expecting it.

Anyway, that really isn't what the fiscal conservative's mentality is, and your statement wasn't true, anyway. It costs more to keep a criminal than kill one. At least, the actual killing doesn't cost that much. It probably costs a lot for criminals to keep getting re-trials.

I didn't make the statement, Fartsniffage did. Please try and pay attention.

There are rarely re-trials in these cases. There are many appeals. And those appeals are absolutely necessary if we are going to have the death penalty at all, in order to minimize the number of innocent people who are put to death.

yes, the parent has a duty to his child. That means he should intervene to save the child.

(a) What child?

(b) Not if intervening means enslaving or harming another human being. Tell me, if a man's child needed a kidney, and the only match refused, should that man tie down the matching person and take their kidney anyways?

It's not simply about the woman's body, and if she cared so much about privacy to her body she wouldn't have gotten herself into this mess in the first place to be using that excuse.

(a) Yes, in the end, it is about the woman's body. It is about a woman making her own medical decisions and determining what her body will be used for.

(b) Ah, the dirty whore argument, cute.

I don't know what you get out of calling it "slavery" to a young girl, when she's so impressionable.

Huh?

Are you trying to get me to believe that I never become intimately involved with a man, because we will always be selfish and protective over our bodies, even after we've made a vow and an act to identify our bodies physically and spiritually as one? Are you saying a married woman doesn't own her husband's body, and he doesn't own hers?

Yes, I am saying precisely that. Marriage does bind two people to become a single entity in many ways, but they do not lose their individual identities in the process. And no, each member of a married couple does not own the other's body. If that were true, beating your spouse would not be illegal or immoral. If that were true, a person would not be able to receive medical treatment without a spouse's express permission.

Are you calling marriage "slavery"?

Nope.

What do you get out of this?

Huh?

Are you making a pass at me?

Huh? No, I'm happily taken, thank you very much.

"How does another person they are unrelated to and don't know dying affect them?"

The "they" is obviously referring pro-life people, but at the same time, your statement in general has many loopholes. You are basically saying, "How can one care when a person they are unrelated to and don't know dies?"

Note that you also said "person", not "a collection of cells that can't exsist away from the mothers body, a parasite", as you so called it. You never said anything about feti. You were making an analogy, but it was not a strict analogy.

Also note that homeless people are usually neither "fully functioning" nor "productive". Most are crazy and usually lie around drunk or complaining. So if someone kills a homeless person, does it matter? Liberals really are hypocrites...

The death of a membr of a society affect everybody, the death of an unborn child does not.

As for the murder of hobos, next time one happens see how much effort the police put into finding the killer in comparison to the murder of a rich member of society. That'll tell you all you need to know about how humanity places value on the lives of different people.

For the last time, I'm not a liberal. Not everyone has the crap two party system you have in the US.

Liberals really are hypocrites...
Shut up you moron, you're not helping the anti-aboriton side here. Conservatives are the living definition hypocrisy today. They rant about the sanctity of life, then they advocate the most brutal war tactics imaginable. You make me sick.

A murder is a crime against society, a fully functioning and productive human being is taken out of circulation.
That's how I view abortion. It's the destruction of a human being that almosty certainly will exist and live.

No you didn't, you answered a quote by someone else who actually quoted me wrong. I'm asking you to look at the actual post I made.

Sorry about that. It was meant to be a paraphrase, not a direct quote.


Developed foetuses have hearts, brains, etc. I'm sure you do too.

Developed fetuses do, yes. Of course, fetuses developed enough to have a functioning brain - at least cognitive function - are illegal to abort except in the case of medical necessity or extreme fetal health problems.

That's how I view abortion. It's the destruction of a human being that almosty certainly will exist and live.


(a) "will exist and live." That means that it does not currently exist as a human being. As such, it cannot be protected as a human being, any more than a child is treated as an adult, or a 20-year old receives a retirement pension. There are many of us who value that potential, but as long as it is potential, then we have no right to force our values on others.

(b) "Almost certainly"? You are kidding, right? Of known pregnancies that are willingly continued, about 50% end in natural miscarriage. Quite a few pregnancies end before they are even known to the woman. A significant percentage of births result in stillbirths or infants who die soon after birth. In the end, a the most likely result of a pregnancy is *not* a viable infant.

That's how I view abortion. It's the destruction of a human being that almosty certainly will exist and live.

I'm fine with that, all I ask is that if the woman choses the foetus be removed from her body, if it can survive then great, if not then tough, womans body, womans right to chose what happens.

Sorry about that. It was meant to be a paraphrase, not a direct quote.

'Tis cool, Crumpet Stone was just using it to try to wriggle out of a very silly statement as it changed the meaning slightly and I didn't feel like letting him/her.

Shut up you moron, you're not helping the anti-aboriton side here. Conservatives are the living definition hypocrisy today. They rant about the sanctity of life, then they advocate the most brutal war tactics imaginable. You make me sick.


how am i not helping it? It's not like anyone is going to convert here. Everyone really just wants to be heard. It's completely true that liberals are hypocrites. They came up with the great idea of "political correctness" yet are still some of the most cruel, barbaric people. Brutal war tactics, eh? The Republicans aren't the reason for the Civil War. Brutal Tactics are used in the war on terror for brutal people. It's what they'll understand. As a great man once said, "Until or while something, something, something, they will always be a little people."

That's how I view abortion. It's the destruction of a human being that almosty certainly will exist and live.

'Tis cool, Crumpet Stone was just using it to try to wriggle out of a very silly statement as it changed the meaning slightly and I didn't feel like letting him/her.

You make a mockery of a very noble land.

how am i not helping it? It's not like anyone is going to convert here. Everyone really just wants to be heard. It's completely true that liberals are hypocrites.

Find me any group of people, especially one based in ideology, that doesn't contain its fair share of hypocrites.

For that matter, find me a single person that isn't hypocritical on at least one issue.

They came up with the great idea of "political correctness" yet are still some of the most cruel, barbaric people. Brutal war tactics, eh? The Republicans aren't the reason for the Civil War.

You do realize that the Republicans of the time were much more "liberal" than "conservative", right?

At the time, a conservative person would have been the one calling for slavery to continue and for fighting for state before country. Abolitionists were very liberal indeed, and the idea that the nation should come before or have more power than the individual states was very new.

Brutal Tactics are used in the war on terror for brutal people.

If we abhor them for being brutal, and then become brutal ourselves, what does that say about us?

Against abortion: for killing babies.

The death of a membr of a society affect everybody, the death of an unborn child does not.

Well, the unborn child would be born and thus would affect society.

As for the murder of hobos, next time one happens see how much effort the police put into finding the killer in comparison to the murder of a rich member of society. That'll tell you all you need to know about how humanity places value on the lives of different people.
Well should that happen or not? My firm opinion is always that government exists to serve all the people not just the rich.

The logic of your opinions lead me to assume that you consider the murder of the homeless to be of lesser severity than the murder of say, businessmen.

You make a mockery of a very noble land.

What land am I mocking now?

actually, it seemed much like the propoganda I find in the News. You said something seemingly shallow, then claimed that you said it because it fits in with the views of the conservatives, as it is financially efficient (which it isn't). You were saying that the fact that a criminal has killed people is eclipsed by the fact that it's expensive to have him executed.

Fits perfectly with conservative ideals. Conservatives usually support reducing taxes and reducing government spending, thus they would go for the cheaper option.

What land am I mocking now?

Band Kamp.

Well, the unborn child would be born and thus would affect society.

Would, could, the important thing to note is that it hasn't yet. I like to deal in reality as much as possible on this issue and not possabilities

Well should that happen or not? My firm opinion is always that government exists to serve all the people not just the rich.

Of course.

The logic of your opinions lead me to assume that you consider the murder of the homeless to be of lesser severity than the murder of say, businessmen.

I gave no opinion on it, I merely said it happens.

Fits perfectly with conservative ideals. Conservatives usually support reducing taxes and reducing government spending, thus they would go for the cheaper option.

Thank you.

Against abortion: for killing babies.

Yes. Precisely.

You do realize that the Republicans of the time were much more "liberal" than "conservative", right?

At the time, a conservative person would have been the one calling for slavery to continue and for fighting for state before country. Abolitionists were very liberal indeed, and the idea that the nation should come before or have more power than the individual states was very new.



this is what most liberals say. They try to redeem the fact that their political party is the democrats, who wanted slavery, with the fact the the republicans from back then were "liberals". sadly, these terms are not the same for nowadays. You'd notice that most republicans are liberals. They, for example, advocate a free government in Iraq and an abolition of abortion, freeing an unborn baby from the possibility of murder. The republicans of today are the ones that advocate change for more freedom.

If we abhor them for being brutal, and then become brutal ourselves, what does that say about us?

would you spank your child for hitting his sibling?

What land am I mocking now?

your native land, England. England was a very chivalrous and quaint place in ye days of olde. Plus it hated the French. You are probably a Frenchman in disguise, sneaking around and wiping dirt on Sherlock Holmes's reputation.

your native land, England. England was a very chivalrous and quaint place in ye days of olde. Plus it hated the French. You are probably a Frenchman in disguise, sneaking around and wiping dirt on Sherlock Holmes's reputation.

Lol, you're funny.

this is what most liberals say.

Really? Next time I meet one, I'll see if he says it.

They try to redeem the fact that their political party is the democrats, who wanted slavery, with the fact the the republicans from back then were "liberals".

Do they? Personally, I have little respect for partisan voting at all. Political parties are all corrupt, some are just moreso than others.

sadly, these terms are not the same for nowadays. You'd notice that most republicans are liberals. They, for example, advocate a free government in Iraq and an abolition of abortion, freeing an unborn baby from the possibility of murder. The republicans of today are the ones that advocate change for more freedom.

LOL, yes, because advocating using women as incubators against their will is "abolition." And Republicans hardly have a monopoly on "advocating a free government in Iraq." You won't find many politicians that are like, "Iraq should totally be a fascist country," no matter what party they belong to.

Meanwhile, the Republicans of today have a tendency to advocate treating some citizens as second-class citizens basically because they always have been, treating any citizen they so choose as a criminal (yeah, because "freedom" means that the government can come arrest and hold you without charge if they choose to say they suspect you of terrorism), unnecessary limits on free speech, and so on...

Both major parties advocate some good things and some bad things. But it would hardly be correct to say that the current Republican party advocates "change for more freedom," when compared with many others.

would you spank your child for hitting his sibling?

Most likely? No.

Regarding the death penalty, I am against it. The legal costs involved in execution are greater than the cost of keeping a person jailed for life. Also, it seems a much more psychologically cruel punishment to live your life in a small pen reflecting on your actions than to die quickly and be rid of your conscience.

Regarding abortion, I like to stick with the "offend everybody" opinion. I don't really support either side, and I don't think public health insurance should pay for them either. On one hand, you are killing a human, abeit a parasitic one. On the other hand, people who can't figure out birth control shouldn't be reproducing. I won't get into the extreme cases, the ones where everyone with a conscience would support the abortion.

I'm fine with that, all I ask is that if the woman choses the foetus be removed from her body, if it can survive then great, if not then tough, womans body, womans right to chose what happens.
You can't just say "tough" when it's a human rights issue.

Brutal war tactics, eh? The Republicans aren't the reason for the Civil War.
Republicans absolutely are the reason for the civil war that has now developed in Iraq.

Brutal Tactics are used in the war on terror for brutal people.
So most of the 70,000+ people killed so far in US wars since 9/11 were brutal terrorists?

It was necessary and right to bring hell on earth to Iraq? That's all that the Republicans have done.

(a) "will exist and live." That means that it does not currently exist as a human being. As such, it cannot be protected as a human being, any more than a child is treated as an adult, or a 20-year old receives a retirement pension. There are many of us who value that potential, but as long as it is potential, then we have no right to force our values on others.
If a foetus is going to soon become a person, what is the difference between aborting it and killing it at birth?

(b) "Almost certainly"? You are kidding, right? Of known pregnancies that are willingly continued, about 50% end in natural miscarriage. Quite a few pregnancies end before they are even known to the woman. A significant percentage of births result in stillbirths or infants who die soon after birth. In the end, a the most likely result of a pregnancy is *not* a viable infant.
Proof? The pregnancies that terminate themselves without knowledge of the woman can be discounted from any percentages you might like to compile.

I'm fine with that, all I ask is that if the woman choses the foetus be removed from her body, if it can survive then great, if not then tough, womans body, womans right to chose what happens.
You can't just say "tough" when it's a human rights issue.

Brutal war tactics, eh? The Republicans aren't the reason for the Civil War.
Republicans absolutely are the reason for the civil war that has now developed in Iraq.

Brutal Tactics are used in the war on terror for brutal people.
So most of the 70,000+ people killed so far in US wars since 9/11 were brutal terrorists?

It was necessary and right to bring hell on earth to Iraq? That's all that the Republicans have done.

(a) "will exist and live." That means that it does not currently exist as a human being. As such, it cannot be protected as a human being, any more than a child is treated as an adult, or a 20-year old receives a retirement pension. There are many of us who value that potential, but as long as it is potential, then we have no right to force our values on others.
If a foetus is going to soon become a person, what is the difference between aborting it and killing it at birth?

(b) "Almost certainly"? You are kidding, right? Of known pregnancies that are willingly continued, about 50% end in natural miscarriage. Quite a few pregnancies end before they are even known to the woman. A significant percentage of births result in stillbirths or infants who die soon after birth. In the end, a the most likely result of a pregnancy is *not* a viable infant.
Proof? The pregnancies that terminate themselves without knowledge of the woman can be discounted from any percentages you might like to compile.

Regarding the death penalty, I am against it. The legal costs involved in execution are greater than the cost of keeping a person jailed for life. Also, it seems a much more psychologically cruel punishment to live your life in a small pen reflecting on your actions than to die quickly and be rid of your conscience.

Regarding abortion, I like to stick with the "offend everybody" opinion. I don't really support either side, and I don't think public health insurance should pay for them either. On one hand, you are killing a human, abeit a parasitic one. On the other hand, people who can't figure out birth control shouldn't be reproducing. I won't get into the extreme cases, the ones where everyone with a conscience would support the abortion.

this is what most liberals say.

Really? Next time I meet one, I'll see if he says it.

They try to redeem the fact that their political party is the democrats, who wanted slavery, with the fact the the republicans from back then were "liberals".

Do they? Personally, I have little respect for partisan voting at all. Political parties are all corrupt, some are just moreso than others.

sadly, these terms are not the same for nowadays. You'd notice that most republicans are liberals. They, for example, advocate a free government in Iraq and an abolition of abortion, freeing an unborn baby from the possibility of murder. The republicans of today are the ones that advocate change for more freedom.

LOL, yes, because advocating using women as incubators against their will is "abolition." And Republicans hardly have a monopoly on "advocating a free government in Iraq." You won't find many politicians that are like, "Iraq should totally be a fascist country," no matter what party they belong to.

Meanwhile, the Republicans of today have a tendency to advocate treating some citizens as second-class citizens basically because they always have been, treating any citizen they so choose as a criminal (yeah, because "freedom" means that the government can come arrest and hold you without charge if they choose to say they suspect you of terrorism), unnecessary limits on free speech, and so on...

Both major parties advocate some good things and some bad things. But it would hardly be correct to say that the current Republican party advocates "change for more freedom," when compared with many others.

would you spank your child for hitting his sibling?

Most likely? No.

I'm fine with that, all I ask is that if the woman choses the foetus be removed from her body, if it can survive then great, if not then tough, womans body, womans right to chose what happens.
You can't just say "tough" when it's a human rights issue.

Brutal war tactics, eh? The Republicans aren't the reason for the Civil War.
Republicans absolutely are the reason for the civil war that has now developed in Iraq.

Brutal Tactics are used in the war on terror for brutal people.
So most of the 70,000+ people killed so far in US wars since 9/11 were brutal terrorists?

It was necessary and right to bring hell on earth to Iraq? That's all that the Republicans have done.

(a) "will exist and live." That means that it does not currently exist as a human being. As such, it cannot be protected as a human being, any more than a child is treated as an adult, or a 20-year old receives a retirement pension. There are many of us who value that potential, but as long as it is potential, then we have no right to force our values on others.
If a foetus is going to soon become a person, what is the difference between aborting it and killing it at birth?

(b) "Almost certainly"? You are kidding, right? Of known pregnancies that are willingly continued, about 50% end in natural miscarriage. Quite a few pregnancies end before they are even known to the woman. A significant percentage of births result in stillbirths or infants who die soon after birth. In the end, a the most likely result of a pregnancy is *not* a viable infant.
Proof? The pregnancies that terminate themselves without knowledge of the woman can be discounted from any percentages you might like to compile.

You can't just say "tough" when it's a human rights issue.

Yes you can, I just did and so has pretty much every civilised country in the world.

I simply boils down to the fact that the rights of a fully functioning human being are more important than those of a bundle of cells.

If a foetus is going to soon become a person, what is the difference between aborting it and killing it at birth?

What is the difference between destroying an acorn and cutting down a tree? What is the difference between bricks and mortar and a house?
What is the difference between a few sentences and a novel?

If a 45 year old is soon going to be elderly, why can he not currently receive elderly benefits?
If a teen is soon to be an adult, why can she not vote?

Proof? The pregnancies that terminate themselves without knowledge of the woman can be discounted from any percentages you might like to compile.

The easiest statistics to get to are on marchofdimes.com.

I was a little bit wrong in what I said before. Up to 50% of all pregnancies end before 20 weeks, not just the known ones. About 1 in 200 end in stillbirth (fetal death after 20 weeks). They don't have listed statistics on neonatal death, but there are many causes. Chromosomal defects (especially trisomy of a non-sex chromosome other than 21), heart defects, severe hydrocephalus, anencephaly (although many would say that this baby was never truly alive), prematurity, genetic defects (often metabolic), etc., etc., etc.

Meanwhile, why do you want early miscarriages discounted? If an embryo/early fetus is what we are discussing (which it has to be, if we are talking about elective abortion), then those miscarriages are certainly important.

This is discrimination based on interest and consequence. Men have no vested interested nor bear any of the consequences for this particular decision. There is no reason for them to weigh in on the debate.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA............






Oh wait, you weren't joking.... NO! :|

I think men should have a say if it's in order to save the child's life...that would mean he'd have to support it. After all, why should men have a duty to the baby after it's born, and no say in whether it's born?

There is no child, there is only a pregnancy.

Then they shouldn't be able to vote pro choice or pro life.

OK, my bad. This is correct.

This dialogue has been a little confusing.

Personally I don't think anyone should be allowed to vote to outlaw abortion, woman or man.

Human rights concern everybody.

Correct, but human rights shouldn't be voted upon in the first place.

I'm generally pro-choice. I have no right to interfer with what is the woman's choice, and criminals can be put to good use.

I'm generally pro-choice. I have no right to interfer with what is the woman's choice, and criminals can be put to good use.

But we have a right to stop her destroying the ability of the child to choose.

Pro Choice. "Ladies" choice. Nuff said.

But we have a right to stop her destroying the ability of the child to choose.

And that "right" originates from what?
.

Choice is life.

One quick question:
At what point do fetuses become human beings?
A second quick question: at what point does that become remotely relavent to the subject of a woman's right to choose?

Why on Earth should it matter if a fetus is a "human being"? No human being has the right to co-opt my body for their own purposes over my objections. No human being has the right to force me to sustain their body with my own organs and tissues.

So really, the question is: at what point do we decide that women are actually sub-human creatures? Is it at the moment of conception, when the Manly Spooge has marked her and thereby stripped her of the right to control her own body? Is it at implantation, when pregnancy renders her no longer a full and autonomous human being? Or is it fetal viability which strips away a woman's most fundamental right, the right to ownership of her own person?

Frankly, the question of fetal personhood is beside the point. It may be an interesting philosophical question, but it's irrelevant to the subject of abortion rights. No human being has the right to use my body against my wishes, so unless fetuses are to be given rights beyond anything that born humans have, the fetus will never have any right which trumps the woman's right to abort her pregnancy.

If a foetus is going to soon become a person, what is the difference between aborting it and killing it at birth?

If a live cow is soon to become some steaks and shoe leather, what is the difference between eating the live cow and dining on the steak while wearing the shoes?

And that "right" originates from what?


The same reason that we have the right to stop others choosing to restrict others choices. Kidnapping is illegal (restriciting others freedom of movement), murder is illegal (restricting the persons right to life), theft is illegal (restricting peoples right to legitamately purchased possessions)

The same reason that we have the right to stop others choosing to restrict others choices. Kidnapping is illegal (restriciting others freedom of movement), murder is illegal (restricting the persons right to life), theft is illegal (restricting peoples right to legitamately purchased possessions)

Yep, and using someone else's body for your own survival is illegal as well, and for good reason.

Yep, and using someone else's body for your own survival is illegal as well, and for good reason.
Ah, but I think we are overlooking a key point: it is legal to use the body of a non-human for your own survival. Perhaps that is what pregnant women are, then? It appears that many people here are quite comfortable with the notion of taking a female human's body against her wishes and using it to sustain the life of another "person," so perhaps we are to conclude that women are non-humans.

Ah, but I think we are overlooking a key point: it is legal to use the body of a non-human for your own survival. Perhaps that is what pregnant women are, then? It appears that many people here are quite comfortable with the notion of taking a female human's body against her wishes and using it to sustain the life of another "person," so perhaps we are to conclude that women are non-humans.

I never looked at it that way.... but I am a bit naive at the best of times. I think you've got a very valid point there....

I never looked at it that way.... but I am a bit naive at the best of times. I think you've got a very valid point there....
It's not so much about the "personhood" of fetuses, so much as it is about the non-personhood of female human beings who have gotten themselves knocked up.

For some "pro-life" individuals, it's specifically about the non-personhood of female human beings who had the audacity to have sex and enjoy it. They're willing to grant that women who were raped are still human beings, and still have the right to abort their pregnancies if they wish, but any woman who chooses to have sex is a non-person who does not deserve the basic rights enjoyed by real persons.

Pro-choice because the only person who gets to decide how my body gets used and by whom, is me. Period. This gets applied equally to all human beings. Period.

Anti-death penalty because I'm an American, and from what I have seen so far, Americans are too vindictive to be trusted with such decisions. They easily give in to a kind of lynch-mob mentality that is more concerned with seeing a punishment get carried out than with making sure the right person is getting punished. States that have the death penalty tend to go in one of two directions. Either they waffle back and forth -- repealing and then reinstating it -- depending on the general political mood of the moment (as in New York, which has switched a couple of times, and Illinois which switched at least once), or they get a bad reputation for killing people regardless of exculpatory evidence, for denying appeals especially at election time, and for expanding the categories of crimes and persons eligible for execution (as in Texas).

With such untrustworthy attitudes towards criminal justice, I prefer sentences that could be overturned if new evidence is presented.

But we have a right to stop her destroying the ability of the child to choose.
This is a nonsensical statement.

Before birth, there is no "child" capable of "choosing" anything. The fetus did not "choose" to be created. The fetus had nothing to do with it, has no control over the progress of the pregnancy or its own development during it, has no personal plan or agenda attached to the pregnancy. It "chooses" nothing. It has no ability to choose, and no choices to make even if it did.

The only people who "chose" in regards to the pregnancy are the two adults who chose to have sex, presuming that it is not a rape situation.

Of those two people, the one with the right to decide whether to go forward with the pregnancy is the woman, because she is the only one facing any physical risks by doing so. The man might have a right to be consulted by the woman, but because he faces no direct physical risks, there is no reason why his opinion or desires should carry any weight beyond what the woman chooses to give them.

A second quick question: at what point does that become remotely relavent to the subject of a woman's right to choose?

Why on Earth should it matter if a fetus is a "human being"? No human being has the right to co-opt my body for their own purposes over my objections. No human being has the right to force me to sustain their body with my own organs and tissues.

So really, the question is: at what point do we decide that women are actually sub-human creatures? Is it at the moment of conception, when the Manly Spooge has marked her and thereby stripped her of the right to control her own body? Is it at implantation, when pregnancy renders her no longer a full and autonomous human being? Or is it fetal viability which strips away a woman's most fundamental right, the right to ownership of her own person?

Frankly, the question of fetal personhood is beside the point. It may be an interesting philosophical question, but it's irrelevant to the subject of abortion rights. No human being has the right to use my body against my wishes, so unless fetuses are to be given rights beyond anything that born humans have, the fetus will never have any right which trumps the woman's right to abort her pregnancy.

...

I'm sorry, I just couldn't follow seriously after "Manly Spooge".

Pro-choice because the only person who gets to decide how my body gets used and by whom, is me. Period. This gets applied equally to all human beings. Period.

Anti-death penalty because I'm an American, and from what I have seen so far, Americans are too vindictive to be trusted with such decisions. They easily give in to a kind of lynch-mob mentality that is more concerned with seeing a punishment get carried out than with making sure the right person is getting punished. States that have the death penalty tend to go in one of two directions. Either they waffle back and forth -- repealing and then reinstating it -- depending on the general political mood of the moment (as in New York, which has switched a couple of times, and Illinois which switched at least once), or they get a bad reputation for killing people regardless of exculpatory evidence, for denying appeals especially at election time, and for expanding the categories of crimes and persons eligible for execution (as in Texas).
A lot of people like to examine the supposed contradiction between being pro-choice and anti-death penalty, since they think they see some kind of contradiction in holding the two views. "You're ok with killing a baby, but not a criminal? You monster!"

Of course, it's perfectly consistent if you realize that "pro-choice" isn't "pro-abortion." Pro-choice means that you don't think the government should be making decisions about what happens to your body, and that you don't think the government should be deciding who is and is not "alive." Opposing the death penalty can be quite consistent with this.

I don't trust my government to tell me when human personhood begins. I also don't trust my government to tell me when my life must end. My body does not belong to my government.

The flip side of this debate has to do with how "pro-life" individuals could support state executions of criminals. Again, just unpack the name and you find the truth: it's not "pro-life," it's "anti-choice." It's not about being in favor of LIFE, it's about being in favor of the government's ownership of certain people. If the government owns women's bodies, then the government gets to decide when those bodies will produce children. If the government owns criminals, then the government gets to decide when they will live and when they will die.

This is a nonsensical statement.

Before birth, there is no "child" capable of "choosing" anything. The fetus did not "choose" to be created. The fetus had nothing to do with it, has no control over the progress of the pregnancy or its own development during it, has no personal plan or agenda attached to the pregnancy. It "chooses" nothing. It has no ability to choose, and no choices to make even if it did.

Furthermore, no born human being is free to "choose" to take over my body and use my organs to sustain their life. Even if they will die without the help of my body, they still aren't free to "choose" to use my body against my wishes.

Saying that a fetus as the right to "choose" to use a woman's body is no different than saying that a man has the right to "choose" to have sex with a woman whether she agrees or not.

pro wat?
this little embryon,is going to learn us how pro we are?
Welcome.

I guess Im pro-death since Im for abortion, stem cells, and the death penalty. I guess I just like it when things die:p

Pro-life, for what it's worth.

A lot of people like to examine the supposed contradiction between being pro-choice and anti-death penalty, since they think they see some kind of contradiction in holding the two views. "You're ok with killing a baby, but not a criminal? You monster!"

Of course, it's perfectly consistent if you realize that "pro-choice" isn't "pro-abortion." Pro-choice means that you don't think the government should be making decisions about what happens to your body, and that you don't think the government should be deciding who is and is not "alive." Opposing the death penalty can be quite consistent with this.

Indeed. And too many people seem to forget that it is entirely possible to be pro-choice and anti-abortion with no more contradictions than being opposed to both drinking and prohibition. I am opposed to abortion. In most cases, I do think it is the wrong choice to make. I think the world would be infinitely better if the choice never even had to be made. However, I also recognize that it is only my right to make that choice for myself, not for another person. Except for the possible case of severe medical problems, I would not have an abortion. I can make that choice for me, but not for anyone else.

I don't trust my government to tell me when human personhood begins. I also don't trust my government to tell me when my life must end. My body does not belong to my government.

Precisely.

I guess Im pro-death since Im for abortion, stem cells, and the death penalty. I guess I just like it when things die

If not for medical advances which would save lives, why are you in favor of stem cell research? =)

I'm not sure where I stand with the death penalty, I haven't really thought about it before. *Thinks some* In my opinion I think that there are some truly vile human beings that don't deserve to live. I suppose I agree with the death penalty being used in serious cases, such as for serial killers/rapists. It goes without saying that there must be no doubt whatsover that you have the right person. Actually, maybe they should just get life imprisonment as their punishment instead. I don't know, I'm undecided on this one.

As for abortion, I am definetely pro-choice. I'm a woman who has decided never to have children, but that doesn't mean that I don't want to have intimate relationships. Oh, and believe it or not, using protection does not guarantee that you won't conceive. It's not just 'dumb sluts' that get pregnant, it can happen to sensible women in stable relationships who use more than one form of contraception. It is not always the womans fault for getting pregnant in the first place. However, no matter how it happens, I still think that she should have the right to choose. I also don't think much of the idea that the woman could always just give birth to the baby and then put it up for adoption. It's not as if going through pregnancy is a doddle. I for one would find coping with pregnancy and trying to do well at university to be very stressful. I'd also miss going to the pub between lectures and at the end of the day. Or maybe I wouldn't miss it, I suppose I could still enjoy getting pissed. It's not as if I'd particualry care about harming this baby I had been forced to carry. I presume that many women wouldn't even go through with the pregnancy, they can always get illegal abortions and hope it turns out all right. Yes, I can see many problems with denying the right to choose.

A lot of people like to examine the supposed contradiction between being pro-choice and anti-death penalty, since they think they see some kind of contradiction in holding the two views. "You're ok with killing a baby, but not a criminal? You monster!"

Of course, it's perfectly consistent if you realize that "pro-choice" isn't "pro-abortion." Pro-choice means that you don't think the government should be making decisions about what happens to your body, and that you don't think the government should be deciding who is and is not "alive." Opposing the death penalty can be quite consistent with this.

I don't trust my government to tell me when human personhood begins. I also don't trust my government to tell me when my life must end. My body does not belong to my government.

The flip side of this debate has to do with how "pro-life" individuals could support state executions of criminals. Again, just unpack the name and you find the truth: it's not "pro-life," it's "anti-choice." It's not about being in favor of LIFE, it's about being in favor of the government's ownership of certain people. If the government owns women's bodies, then the government gets to decide when those bodies will produce children. If the government owns criminals, then the government gets to decide when they will live and when they will die.
Yes, I agree completely.

In real, practical terms, the abortion rights debate and the death penalty debate are entirely different issues that have nothing at all to do with each other, but at the heart of them is the same concern -- does the state/society/majority/whathaveyou own the individual? It seems obvious to me that it does not and should not and indeed cannot, but apparently there are people who think differently.

I have heard different arguments both for and against both issues, but whenever I see them linked as they sort of are here, it is usually in the context of arguing that the state does control our bodies, that personal physical liberty and self-ownership are somehow illusions, and that if the state/society/authorities/etc have the right to tell control our bodies from something as minor as regulating drugs to something as irrevocable as the death penalty, then why should they not also have the right to tell a woman she's not allowed to abort her pregnancy? It is a false argument because these things are not equivalent, yet it keeps coming up.

It is nothing more than an appeal to higher authority, on the assumption that the higher authority will agree with the person making the argument.

Furthermore, no born human being is free to "choose" to take over my body and use my organs to sustain their life. Even if they will die without the help of my body, they still aren't free to "choose" to use my body against my wishes.

Saying that a fetus as the right to "choose" to use a woman's body is no different than saying that a man has the right to "choose" to have sex with a woman whether she agrees or not.
I consider this the bedrock argument of the entire debate. There is no getting around it. I have never seen a successful counter-argument. Yet we keep having to fight this battle over and over. Sigh.

Anti-Death Penalty, in all cases. No matter how sure the jury thinks they are, there is always the chance that they are wrong. Because it is POSSIBLE for innocent people to be executed, it seems fairly obvious that it has happened multiple times over the years. Unacceptable. It's not right to end a human life when you might have misjudged them.

Pro-Choice, to a point. In my mind, a fetus becomes a human being when it develops a functioning nervous system. Before then, I have no problems with abortion, though I would never approve of a loved one having one.

As for abortion, I am definetely pro-choice. I'm a woman who has decided never to have children, but that doesn't mean that I don't want to have intimate relationships. Oh, and believe it or not, using protection does not guarantee that you won't conceive.

Out of curiosity, if this is definitely your decision - ie., you are sure you never want to have children - why don't you or your partner get medically sterilized? Then, for the most part, it doesn't even have to be a worry.

I say I'm pro-choice, but I believe that people choose to have sex and they then choose to use birth control. If they fuck up both of these choices and get pregnant, why should they be trusted with a third choice to end a life? If either of the first two choices are deprived them, as in the case of rape or whatever, then yeah, they should still get a choice.


Why should they be trusted with a new life either? They're obviously too irresponsible to take care of themselves, much less someone else.

I dont see anything wrong with death as a penalty, but I do not thinking that the government, as it exists now, is competent to administer it.

My proposal: allow the death penalty for certain murders, but only ever on incontrovertible scientific proof of guilt.

If one innocent person is discovered to be sentenced to death, put a ten year moratorium on the death penalty and commute all sentences to life in prison w/o parole.

I dont see anything wrong with death as a penalty, but I do not thinking that the government, as it exists now, is competent to administer it.

Nor could it ever be, as no government is going to be infallible.

My proposal: allow the death penalty for certain murders, but only ever on incontrovertible scientific proof of guilt.

So, right, never then.

=)

I say: The more dead babies the better!

I say: The more dead babies the better!
Do you work in a baby oil or matze factory?

Yep, and using someone else's body for your own survival is illegal as well, and for good reason.

As if the child had a choice?

Nor could it ever be, as no government is going to be infallible.



So, right, never then.

=)

Indeed, it is a tough standard.

Perhaps one day with technology we will be able to prove, at least in some cases, unequivocal guilt.

Then we can put the guilty to death with a clean conscience.

I find the idea of abortion repugnant, but it's not my place what to tell you what to do with your body. A woman's reproductive system is her own business, regardless of my repulsion.

That being said, my only bitch with the system is that there is no resolution on the hypocrisy of a male being responsible for conception, then having no say in the life or death of the unborn for nine months, but being held responsible after the child's birth solely on the basis of it being his sperm cell that fertilized the egg. Hold him responsible, yes, but fix the hypocrisy, please.

As if the child had a choice?

There are thousands of people dying each year because they need blood transfusions but their specific type is not available to the hospital. Does that give anyone the right to track you down and force you to give them some of your blood? No.
So why would have a foetus rights that any other person doesn't have?

There are thousands of people dying each year because they need blood transfusions but their specific type is not available to the hospital. Does that give anyone the right to track you down and force you to give them some of your blood? No.
So why would have a foetus rights that any other person doesn't have?

Because unlike those people, you did not force those people into that position. The child is forced into the position by the mother & father. It had no choice in the matter.

Because unlike those people, you did not force those people into that position. The child is forced into the position by the mother & father. It had no choice in the matter.

Even if I had caused the accident that put the other person in need of a blood transfusion, I cannot be forced to give my blood.

Even if I had caused the accident that put the other person in need of a blood transfusion, I cannot be forced to give my blood.

I see no reason why not. There is no civil right I can think of that would protect you from that. You have commited a crime/caused an aciedent etc and therfore if a government chose to force you to save them at your own expense if you could then there would be nothing to legititmately prevent them from doing so.

I see no reason why not. There is no civil right I can think of that would protect you from that. You have commited a crime/caused an aciedent etc and therfore if a government chose to force you to save them at your own expense if you could then there would be nothing to legititmately prevent them from doing so.

There are laws in every country in the Western world prohibiting such an act. Even if I were sentenced to death for causing the accident, no government had any right to take my blood even after I'm dead. It's completely and totally up to me what I want to do with my body, if I want to donate anything or if I want everything burried intact.

The right in question here would be the right to "security of person".

Because unlike those people, you did not force those people into that position. The child is forced into the position by the mother & father. It had no choice in the matter.
If I hit you with my car and you require a blood transfusion, you aren't allowed to take my blood without my permission.

If I hit you while driving drunk (a criminal act) you STILL don't get my blood without my permission.

If I shoot you in the stomach and you require an organ transplant to survive, and by amazing coincidence I'm the only possible donor, you STILL don't get my organs without my permission.

Look at that. I forced you into the position, and you still don't get to use my body without my permission.

There are laws in every country in the Western world prohibiting such an act. Even if I were sentenced to death for causing the accident, no government had any right to take my blood even after I'm dead. It's completely and totally up to me what I want to do with my body, if I want to donate anything or if I want everything burried intact.

The right in question here would be the right to "security of person".

There is no law at present, but doing something like that a government does have the right to remove rights from you. For instance, if you do cause that sort of accident, you can be imprisoned.

If I hit you with my car and you require a blood transfusion, you aren't allowed to take my blood without my permission.

If I hit you while driving drunk (a criminal act) you STILL don't get my blood without my permission.

If I shoot you in the stomach and you require an organ transplant to survive, and by amazing coincidence I'm the only possible donor, you STILL don't get my organs without my permission.

Look at that. I forced you into the position, and you still don't get to use my body without my permission.

Not currently, but as I said, a government has the right to relieve you of rights in those situations.

There is no law at present, but doing something like that a government does have the right to remove rights from you. For instance, if you do cause that sort of accident, you can be imprisoned.

Not currently, but as I said, a government has the right to relieve you of rights in those situations.
You realize, of course, that in the example we are using the "accident" in question is the pregnancy itself. So you just concluded that the government should jail people for getting knocked up.

There is no law at present, but doing something like that a government does have the right to remove rights from you. For instance, if you do cause that sort of accident, you can be imprisoned.

Not currently, but as I said, a government has the right to relieve you of rights in those situations.
No, they are able to enforce the law. They are not able to relieve you of your right to keep your bodily stuff inside your body.

You realize, of course, that in the example we are using the "accident" in question is the pregnancy itself. So you just concluded that the government should jail people for getting knocked up.
While I laughed, that isn't what they meant... probably.

You realize, of course, that in the example we are using the "accident" in question is the pregnancy itself. So you just concluded that the government should jail people for getting knocked up.

No. You circumnavigate the point

Follow the argument through from its beginings

1 = me, 2 = you

2: You do not have the right to interfere with womens bodies
1: But we have the right to stop women interfering with other peoples bodies
2: What gave you that idea
1: The fact that murder is illegal
2: It is also illegal to use others bodies for your own survial
1: If you caused that situation, there is nothing nessecarly illigitmate about it
2: Your suggesting women should be locked up for being pregent?
1: No. I'm suggesting that their right to security of person is relieved of them as they have caused the situation where should they so exercise that right would cost someone their life.

I'm not concluding that the government should lock people up for being pregnant. Follow it through. Locking people up is one example of a situation where your rights are relieved of you because you have exercisied them in a manner which would violate other peoples rights. Thats what laws do, they prevent you from violating other peoples rights, and they relieve you of your own as punishment for if you do. In the same way, a law against abortion would relieve women of the right to security of person in the instance of abortion because to exercise that right is to deny someone else a right to life. Its all the same with laws. Right to priviacy of people stops the right to free press becoming too far reaching. Right to property restricts right to freedom of movement (IE tresspassing).

No. You circumnavigate the point

Follow the argument through from its beginings

1 = me, 2 = you

2: You do not have the right to interfere with womens bodies
1: But we have the right to stop women interfering with other peoples bodies
2: What gave you that idea
1: The fact that murder is illegal
2: It is also illegal to use others bodies for your own survial
1: If you caused that situation, there is nothing nessecarly illigitmate about it
2: Your suggesting women should be locked up for being pregent?
1: No. I'm suggesting that their right to security of person is relieved of them as they have caused the situation where should they so exercise that right would cost someone their life.

I didn't make several of those arguments, and I certainly didn't respond to your points in the manner you are suggesting. You also make some convenient little hops (from "illegal" in one argument to "illigitimate" in the next) that leave yawning chasms in your reasoning.

We gave an example of how a person could put you in the position of requiring organs or blood from their body, but you would not be allowed to harvest those materials without their consent. You replied by pointing out that they could be punished for putting you in the position of needing those materials. Sure, that's true...but the punishment could not include forcing them to donate the organs or blood.

If you want to argue that women should be punished for putting a fetus in the position of needing the woman's body, then that's your argument to make. However, according to our system of law, part of the punishment cannot be forcing the woman to continue the pregnancy against her wishes.


I'm not concluding that the government should lock people up for being pregnant. Follow it through. Locking people up is one example of a situation where your rights are relieved of you because you have exercisied them in a manner which would violate other peoples rights. Thats what laws do, they prevent you from violating other peoples rights, and they relieve you of your own as punishment for if you do. In the same way, a law against abortion would relieve women of the right to security of person in the instance of abortion because to exercise that right is to deny someone else a right to life.

But that's our whole point. Another person's "right to life" does not trump the bodily integrity of another person. You are not permitted to take pieces of another person's body to maintain your own life, even if it is directly their fault that you need those pieces. You do not have the right to live at the expense of another person's body. Why should fetuses be granted this right?


Its all the same with laws. Right to priviacy of people stops the right to free press becoming too far reaching. Right to property restricts right to freedom of movement (IE tresspassing).
Yes, and the right to own your own body trumps the "right to life" of those who might want your kidney or your blood. That's how laws work.

I already answered you. Your premise is false.

If a live cow is soon to become some steaks and shoe leather, what is the difference between eating the live cow and dining on the steak while wearing the shoes?
I'm a vegetarian so I think both are wrong. I don't think there is any real difference.

I'm a vegetarian so I think both are wrong. I don't think there is any real difference.
*Sigh* I guess I'm going to have to give up on analogies, since nobody seems to understand what they mean.

Do you believe that a living cow is literally identical to a steak and some shoes? Because, if you did, you wouldn't object to cows being butchered and turned into food and shoes, since they'd still be exactly the same thing. Or is it possible, perhaps, that you believe POTENTIAL and ACTUAL are two different things? That a cow may POTENTIALLY be food wrapped in shoes, but that it is ACTUALLY a living creature? Might that be the root of your vegitarianism, perhaps?

Correct, but human rights shouldn't be voted upon in the first place.
I agree. I view abortion as a violation of a child's right to live.

I agree. I view abortion as a violation of a child's right to live.
There is no right to live. And if there was, that means abstinence is a violation of a child's right to live, as well as contraception, then you begin to violate people's right to privacy and security.

There is no right to live. And if there was, that means abstinence is a violation of a child's right to live, as well as contraception, then you begin to violate people's right to privacy and security.
Heh, you beat me to it.

Indeed, getting pregnant would violate the "right to life" for some other "child," since a woman who is currently pregnant can't get pregnant with another child. So THAT "potential person" doesn't get to live! Noooooooo!

When we start suggesting potential as rights, we get into.. well, what the fuck do we get into when we suggest potential has rights?

When we start suggesting potential as rights, we get into.. well, what the fuck do we get into when we suggest potential has rights?
A mighty big muddle, if you ask me.

We end up in a world where actual human beings are considered less important than the potential for future human beings, and actual human rights are less important than the rights of potential beings who may or may not ever exist.

We end up with a world where women are recommended to view themselves as "pre-pregnant," and to avoid things like drinking or owning cats because these activities may have adverse effects on the pregnancies that they are supposed to assume they are going to have. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html?referrer=emailarticle)

We end up with a world where a female human being's life is worth more BEFORE she is born that it is after she is born, and where an XX zygote has more rights than a woman.

Confusing as hell, if you ask me.

There is no law at present, but doing something like that a government does have the right to remove rights from you. For instance, if you do cause that sort of accident, you can be imprisoned.



Not currently, but as I said, a government has the right to relieve you of rights in those situations.

True. But even in prison, they have no right to remove blood from my body. Or anything else for that matter.

True. But even in prison, they have no right to remove blood from my body. Or anything else for that matter.
Pro-Life America: Where Pregnant Women Have Fewer Rights Than Convicted Murderers.

No. You circumnavigate the point

Follow the argument through from its beginings

1 = me, 2 = you

2: You do not have the right to interfere with womens bodies
1: But we have the right to stop women interfering with other peoples bodies
2: What gave you that idea
1: The fact that murder is illegal
2: It is also illegal to use others bodies for your own survial
1: If you caused that situation, there is nothing nessecarly illigitmate about it
2: Your suggesting women should be locked up for being pregent?
1: No. I'm suggesting that their right to security of person is relieved of them as they have caused the situation where should they so exercise that right would cost someone their life.

I'm not concluding that the government should lock people up for being pregnant. Follow it through. Locking people up is one example of a situation where your rights are relieved of you because you have exercisied them in a manner which would violate other peoples rights. Thats what laws do, they prevent you from violating other peoples rights, and they relieve you of your own as punishment for if you do. In the same way, a law against abortion would relieve women of the right to security of person in the instance of abortion because to exercise that right is to deny someone else a right to life. Its all the same with laws. Right to priviacy of people stops the right to free press becoming too far reaching. Right to property restricts right to freedom of movement (IE tresspassing).

Wrong premiss.
By unintentionally causing an accident that makes it necessary for another person to have a blood transfusion in order to survive, and by denying them any of my blood, I'm not making myself immediately guilty.
I might be partially responsible, which in turn will have consequences like my driver license being withdrawn, but it would not land me in prison.

I didn't make several of those arguments, and I certainly didn't respond to your points in the manner you are suggesting. You also make some convenient little hops (from "illegal" in one argument to "illigitimate" in the next) that leave yawning chasms in your reasoning.

Illegal implies current laws. Legimate includes hypotherical laws which if made, would not be unfair


We gave an example of how a person could put you in the position of requiring organs or blood from their body, but you would not be allowed to harvest those materials without their consent. You replied by pointing out that they could be punished for putting you in the position of needing those materials. Sure, that's true...but the punishment could not include forcing them to donate the organs or blood.

No, the punishment DOES not include forceing people to donate organs and blood if they are the only people who can do save them if they have caused the situation. But there is no reason why it could not.


If you want to argue that women should be punished for putting a fetus in the position of needing the woman's body, then that's your argument to make. However, according to our system of law, part of the punishment cannot be forcing the woman to continue the pregnancy against her wishes.

Acording to the CURRENT system of law. What I am arguing is that there is no reason to suggest such a change would be in opposition to human rights.


But that's our whole point. Another person's "right to life" does not trump the bodily integrity of another person. You are not permitted to take pieces of another person's body to maintain your own life, even if it is directly their fault that you need those pieces. You do not have the right to live at the expense of another person's body. Why should fetuses be granted this right?

Because (as I have been saying thought) it is you who put the fetus in that position in the first place. We place restricitions on peoples ability to exercisie their rights in certian ways in certian circumstances where they violate other peoples rights. For example, freedom of movement does not give you the right to trespass. Freedom of speech does not guarantee the right to encite viloence. Hence if you create a situation where your own bodily integrity is violated to support anothers right to life, it is your own decision and your own responability. Hence we can legitiamtely put a restriction on someones freedom to bodyly integrity if they themselves put this limit on and in turn caused a risk to someone elses right to life.

If I were to put you in a chamber where you were running out of air and only I had the codes to input every hour to keep you alive, I would be responable if I did not put the codes in and thus you died.

True. But even in prison, they have no right to remove blood from my body. Or anything else for that matter.

They have rights to relieve you of rights. Whichever rights are logically apropriate for the situation. In the case of crime, it is freedom of movement so you are not free to abuse that freedom and hurting someone. And in the case of the fetus, the womans right to bodyly integrity is removed, since it is she who has put this child in the situation in the first place.

Hardcore pro-life here.

high five.

I find the idea of abortion repugnant, but it's not my place what to tell you what to do with your body. A woman's reproductive system is her own business, regardless of my repulsion.

That being said, my only bitch with the system is that there is no resolution on the hypocrisy of a male being responsible for conception, then having no say in the life or death of the unborn for nine months, but being held responsible after the child's birth solely on the basis of it being his sperm cell that fertilized the egg. Hold him responsible, yes, but fix the hypocrisy, please.

It isn't a matter of hypocrisy. It is a matter of basic biology. The man is the father of the child (if one is born) and thus should take responsibility for it. He cannot, however, make decisions regarding pregnancy because he isn't pregnant. He has no right to make medical decisions for another competent adult human being.

That being said, I don't think *anyone* should be legally forced to be responsible for a child if they do not take on that responsibility willingly. A forced parent isn't going to be a good situation for the child. However, I do think that any parent who does not do so willingly is irresponsible, and largely undeserving of any respect.


We end up with a world where women are recommended to view themselves as "pre-pregnant," and to avoid things like drinking or owning cats because these activities may have adverse effects on the pregnancies that they are supposed to assume they are going to have. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...r=emailarticle)

To be fair, I've read the actual recommendations and they don't say any such thing. They do recommend that all women take the daily suggested amount of folic acid, both for herself and any possible unplanned pregnancies (as many unplanned pregnancies are, in fact, brought to term). They also have suggestions for doctors on counseling women on being prepared for any future reproductive plans (ie. if you want to have kids later, you shouldn't fuck up your body in these ways now) or how women who are actually trying to conceive should preserve their health and the health of their future offspring.

"Pre-pregnant" and the over-arching emphasis on unplanned pregnancy was added by the press.

No, the punishment DOES not include forceing people to donate organs and blood if they are the only people who can do save them if they have caused the situation. But there is no reason why it could not.

Yes, there is, and it is the same reason that criminals still get to make their own medical decisions, even when in jail. Even after a criminal action, the state does not own any person's body.

Acording to the CURRENT system of law. What I am arguing is that there is no reason to suggest such a change would be in opposition to human rights.

So the state taking over ownership of a person's body wouldn't be in opposition to human rights? The nations that force abortions and sterilizations onto women aren't abusing human rights?

Because (as I have been saying thought) it is you who put the fetus in that position in the first place.

If putting a fetus in the womb is abusing its "rights", then surely we should remove it immediately.

What Rainbowwws finds weird is that a mom is irresponsible and gets accidentally pregnant then her baby deserves to be born. How ever if a mom is responsible and prevents accidental pregnancy then the baby never gets a chance to be made in the first place, which might be an equally sad situation.
NOTE DISCLAIMER* I am aware that not all accidental pregnancies are a result of irresponsible behaviour, But some are you must admit.

high five.
Time to party like it's 1699!

Time to party like it's 1699!

Actually, abortion up until the 4th month or so was legal in most places in 1699 (although it likely required the husband's consent, since he owned his wife). These people don't want to require husband's consent, they just want to ban it outright. More like 1959 than 1699. =/

How is it subjugating women to oppose the death penalty, wars, exploitation, abortion, and to support aiding women in motherhood?

I don't think there is any evidence that capital punishment acts more of a deterrent than life in jail.

Now, your first statement makes sense, but that last part?
"No evidence that capital punishment acts more of a deterrent than life in jail"?

Pardon my stupidity, but it would seem a lot harder for a criminal to come back from the dead than to escape prison or somehow get off eventually on good behavior. Not to mention it's cheaper to kill worthless destroyers of society than to feed them, clothe them, give them exercise facilities and cable TV... But that's a whole other argument. Meh.

Yes, there is, and it is the same reason that criminals still get to make their own medical decisions, even when in jail. Even after a criminal action, the state does not own any person's body.

You have yet to understand, it is possible and in line with human rights to restrict certian rights to an extent so that other rights are protected. This is done by laws. Laws prevent you exercising your right to freedom of movement such as anti tresspassing legislation. Laws prevent you from exercising free speech by outlawing encitement to vilonece.


So the state taking over ownership of a person's body wouldn't be in opposition to human rights? The nations that force abortions and sterilizations onto women aren't abusing human rights?

You are twisting a specific instance into a general concept. Do not twist my words and arguments. I am talking about a specific case, not generally violating rights of bodyly stability. In the same way that violating your right to free speech by passing legislation against enciting vilonece does not endanger your right to criticise your government in a peaceful manner, so to does not the removal of the right to bodyly integrity in the case of abortion mean that a government can legitimately force sterilaisations onto people


If putting a fetus in the womb is abusing its "rights", then surely we should remove it immediately.

No, that is not what I said. What I said was is that it would be abusing its rights to kill it. Again listen to my metaphor

If I were to force you into a chamber and only if I inputed certian codes into the computer every hour would you be kept alive, then logically if I dont input those codes I am repsonable for your death.

Now, your first statement makes sense, but that last part?
"No evidence that capital punishment acts more of a deterrent than life in jail"?

Pardon my stupidity, but it would seem a lot harder for a criminal to come back from the dead than to escape prison or somehow get off eventually on good behavior.

Indeed. And we can all rationally look at that and think that it would serve as a deterrent. But, there is no evidence that, in practice, it actually does. In fact, population/economics-matched samples have demonstrated that violent crime rates are actually higher in places that have the death penalty than in places that do not.

Not to mention it's cheaper to kill worthless destroyers of society than to feed them, clothe them, give them exercise facilities and cable TV... But that's a whole other argument. Meh.

If it were a matter of "Bam, guilty, dead," you would be correct. But it isn't, and we can't have it that way. With the possibility of executing an innocent person always present, we cannot remove the appeals process. And, in the end, the appeals process ends up costing the taxpayers much, much, much more money than housing the prisoner for life in prison.


You have yet to understand, it is possible and in line with human rights to restrict certian rights to an extent so that other rights are protected. This is done by laws. Laws prevent you exercising your right to freedom of movement such as anti tresspassing legislation. Laws prevent you from exercising free speech by outlawing encitement to vilonece.

And there are certain rights that cannot be removed if a nation wishes to preserve human rights. The right to one's own body, to make one's own medical decisions, is one of them.

You are twisting a specific instance into a general concept. Do not twist my words and arguments. I am talking about a specific case, not generally violating rights of bodyly stability. In the same way that violating your right to free speech by passing legislation against enciting vilonece does not endanger your right to criticise your government in a peaceful manner, so to does not the removal of the right to bodyly integrity in the case of abortion mean that a government can legitimately force sterilaisations onto people

Yes, it does. There is logically no difference between forcing a woman to continue being pregnant and forcing a woman to stop being pregnant, unless, of course, we bring in religious views held by some, and not by others.

No, that is not what I said. What I said was is that it would be abusing its rights to kill it. Again listen to my metaphor

Your original metaphor involved injuring someone so that they needed organs. Injuring someone is infringing upon their rights. The equivalent to that injury in this metaphor is becoming pregnant - putting the embryo/fetus in the womb.

If I were to force you into a chamber and only if I inputed certian codes into the computer every hour would you be kept alive, then logically if I dont input those codes I am repsonable for your death.

If you force me into a chamber, you have already violated my rights by kidnapping me.

Of course, a better analogy all-round would be, "I didn't want you in my chamber. I probably even took steps to prevent you being there. But now you're there. I don't want you there. Get out."

They have rights to relieve you of rights. Whichever rights are logically apropriate for the situation. In the case of crime, it is freedom of movement so you are not free to abuse that freedom and hurting someone. And in the case of the fetus, the womans right to bodyly integrity is removed, since it is she who has put this child in the situation in the first place.

Rrrright... so we can't force a man to donate blood, even if another person's life depended on it.
But a woman gives up all rights to her own body the moment she decides to have sex. Is that what you're saying?

Illegal implies current laws. Legimate includes hypotherical laws which if made, would not be unfair
If you want to talk about a fantasy reality, please join a role playing thread. The abortion rights debate is real, and it is based in real, existing law. We are talking about what is, not what you wish for.

No, the punishment DOES not include forceing people to donate organs and blood if they are the only people who can do save them if they have caused the situation. But there is no reason why it could not.
As Dempublicents pointed out, there are reasons why it cannot, chief among those reasons being that slavery is illegal.

There are also very good reasons why it SHOULD not, chief among them being (A) that slavery is both illegal and unethical, and (B) that giving such power to any government would constitute absolute tyranny and a society in which NO human life is safe, born or unborn. It would put us all -- including you -- at the mercy of a dictator's whims (even if that dictator was a congress or a faceless "system").

Are you so eager to enslave women that you would put yourself in chains, too?

Acording to the CURRENT system of law. What I am arguing is that there is no reason to suggest such a change would be in opposition to human rights.
This remark makes sense only if you do not think women are human and that, thus, denying them rights is not denying human rights.

What you propose would enslave women to be used by fetuses, or by the state claiming to act on behalf of fetuses. The parties and the motives don't matter. What counts is that a woman is told she has no right to control her own body because someone else is using it for their own purposes. Forcing any person to submit their bodies to be used by others against their will -- whether by forcing blood/organ donation or forcing women to carry pregnancies -- is slavery, and there is no more clear human rights violation than that.

Because (as I have been saying thought) it is you who put the fetus in that position in the first place.
Irrelevant. Reasons why follow.

We place restricitions on peoples ability to exercisie their rights in certian ways in certian circumstances where they violate other peoples rights.
I'm sorry, but your remarks on this point show a lack of understanding about the law. Your argument, here and below, is flawed on the basis of how rights work, who owns and exercises rights, the concept of voluntary versus mandatory, and contract law as it governs agreements.

For example, freedom of movement does not give you the right to trespass.
A) There is no right to freedom of movement in the US. The right we have is freedom of association and peaceful assembly. It is not the same. Americans have traditionally been free to travel without governmental permission, but this is nothing more than tradition. It is not codified in law, and it has always been limited by private property rights, as you yourself point out. Your argument about rights would be stronger if you knew what rights are and which ones we actually have.

B) Your own mention of trespass invalidates this example as a support for your argument. Indeed, we are free to associate with whomever we like, but not wherever we like. We are free to assemble peaceably, but not on someone else's property without their permission. However, in any event, in the case of pregnancy, your example gets flipped on its head. In regards to pregnancy, I, the woman, am not the trespassing wanderer. I am the property owner, and it is the fetus that is trespassing on my property, i.e., my uterus. As such, I have the right both to bar it from entering and to expel it after it enters.

A property owner has the right to expell not only trespassers but also invited guests from his property at any time, for any reason he likes. If we are to use property rights as an example, then why should I have less right of ownership over my own body than I do over a house or a plot of land? Which is more vital to my existence? A house, or my own body? Which will cause me more damage if it is commandeered by someone else against my wishes? Even if my refusal to share this property would result in another's injury or death, I cannot be forced to share my property without just compensation. If the state takes my land, I can be compensated, but you offer no compensation for forcing me to allow a fetus to gestate inside me. Indeed, how could I be compensated for the physical risks of being forced to endure 9 months of pregnancy? And what if those risks result in serious illness or permanent injury? How then will I be compensated for being forced to suffer them against my will? Even if you only claim the right to use my body for your uses temporarily, how will you return it to its original condition when you are done with it, as is typically required when property is taken temporarily for special uses? You cannot.

Bodily integrity is a concept that reaches beyond the limits of property rights because there is more at stake in it than in mere property. Therefore, the right of a person to be secure in their person cannot be limited the way property rights can.

Freedom of speech does not guarantee the right to encite viloence.
Not being permitted to do something is not the same as being forced to do something.

You are attempting to make a negative prohibition (not being allowed to incite violence) set a precedent for a positive requirement (a woman who becomes pregnant must carry the pregnancy). You may attempt to disquise this by saying that what you are talking about is a negative prohibition (women may not terminate a pregnancy) but this is a distinction without a difference. By not allowing me to do one thing (terminate pregnancy) you are, in fact, forcing me to do another thing (carry pregnancy).

The limitation on free speech example is not the same. If I am not allowed to incite violence, I still have the option to say something else or say nothing. But if I have an unwanted pregnancy, and I am not allowed to terminate it, then I have no options. I am forced to carry the pregnancy.

The limitation of free speech limits my freedom but still leaves me with some freedom and several choices. A prohibition against abortion takes away all my options and leaves me with no freedom and no choices. They are not equivalent.

Hence if you create a situation where your own bodily integrity is violated to support anothers right to life, it is your own decision and your own responability. Hence we can legitiamtely put a restriction on someones freedom to bodyly integrity if they themselves put this limit on and in turn caused a risk to someone elses right to life.
This argument does not make sense. The key to the problem is in the world "hence." In order to make the leap between me privately choosing to do something with my own body and the state having a right to force me to allow someone else to use my body for their own purposes, you have to jump a chasm full of assumptions about fetuses, rights, agreements, government, sex, and pregnancy that have no basis in the law, or in logic, or in reality.

If I were to put you in a chamber where you were running out of air and only I had the codes to input every hour to keep you alive, I would be responable if I did not put the codes in and thus you died.
A pregnant woman does not have to pump oxygen into her uterus every hour to keep the pregnancy going. Once again you are comparing apples to oranges, only in reverse this time. You are trying to make a positive action (putting in codes) stand in for a passive non-action (being pregnant). And you have to make up some ridiculous fantasy scenario to do it, too. It doesn't hold water.

EDIT: I should also point out that the positive action (putting in codes) holds no risk to me, but the passive non-action (being pregnant) most certainly does. I lose nothing by putting in your supposed codes. I stand to lose a great deal, up to and including my own life, by carrying a pregnancy.

Now, your first statement makes sense, but that last part?
"No evidence that capital punishment acts more of a deterrent than life in jail"?

Pardon my stupidity, but it would seem a lot harder for a criminal to come back from the dead than to escape prison or somehow get off eventually on good behavior. Not to mention it's cheaper to kill worthless destroyers of society than to feed them, clothe them, give them exercise facilities and cable TV... But that's a whole other argument. Meh.
What you're talking about is preventing rescidivism (sp?) -- i.e. preventing the same person from committing the same crime again. That is not the same as deterrence -- i.e. preventing others from committing that crime by setting an example.

And there are certain rights that cannot be removed if a nation wishes to preserve human rights. The right to one's own body, to make one's own medical decisions, is one of them.

So you are willing to extend that right to the woman, and not the right of life to the child. Rights contradict one another and thus must be clarified. The right to freedom of movement is clarified by the laws against trespassing.


Yes, it does. There is logically no difference between forcing a woman to continue being pregnant and forcing a woman to stop being pregnant, unless, of course, we bring in religious views held by some, and not by others.

Of course there is. The logic behind forcing a woman to remain pregnant, as you put it, is to preserve the right to life of the child, which is more important than the right to bodyly security of the woman ultimately


Of course, a better analogy all-round would be, "I didn't want you in my chamber. I probably even took steps to prevent you being there. But now you're there. I don't want you there. Get out."

You seem to forget, that she also took steps to make sure you would go in there. A better analogy is this "I'm going to throw you at this chamber door. After I thorw you I'm going to run around and try to catch you to prevent you from falling in the chamber, but I may not succeed. If I dont succeed I will then proceed to kill you by cutting off the air to that chamber because I don't want you in it.

Can I just say something?

Fetus=/= Child

fetus=parasite


These two things hold until after Month 6.

So you are willing to extend that right to the woman, and not the right of life to the child. Rights contradict one another and thus must be clarified. The right to freedom of movement is clarified by the laws against trespassing.
I have explained how this is a false comparison and how it undermines your own argument.

First, there is no such thing as a "right to freedom of movement." Second, if trespassing is against the law, why are you arguing in favor of allowing a fetus and the state (as its representative) to trespass on my body?

Of course there is. The logic behind forcing a woman to remain pregnant, as you put it, is to preserve the right to life of the child, which is more important than the right to bodyly security of the woman ultimately
I like the way the anti-choice crowd often likes to claim that there is such a thing as a right to life even though it is also an anti-choice argument that Roe v Wade is wrong because there is no such thing as a right to privacy because it's not in the Constitution. Guess what? There is no right to life in the Constitution, either.

But there is a right not to be enslaved, and THAT is covered by a woman's right to control who gets to use her body and who doesn't.

Wrap your mind around it: There is no "child" who is exercising a "right to life" while in the uterus. The unborn fetus is not a person, as defined by law, and therefore, no legal rights attach to it. Especially not rights that don't exist.

Further, even if there was such a thing as a "right to life," which there isn't, it would still be impossible to extend legal rights to people who do not exist, so there can never be any such thing as a right to be born into the world, because no one will ever come around to claim such a thing, and no one can be compensated for not getting it.

Unless you live in a totally absurd universe.

You seem to forget, that she also took steps to make sure you would go in there. A better analogy is this "I'm going to throw you at this chamber door. After I thorw you I'm going to run around and try to catch you to prevent you from falling in the chamber, but I may not succeed. If I dont succeed I will then proceed to kill you by cutting off the air to that chamber because I don't want you in it.
I assume you are imagining the process of sex, ejaculation, and fertilization in this rather odd little story, but in this case, how is the woman the one throwing spooge at the door? Isn't the guy the one doing that?

But let's try to steer the conversation back to adulthood, shall we? If the woman used birth control, and it failed, then the pregnancy is unwanted, and the embryo is out of luck. It is a trespasser, which seems to be one of your favorite examples of things people should not be allowed to do. Out it goes. I have every right to remove a trespasser from my home, even if I have to kill him to do it. Why should I have less right to defend my body from an intruder?

If you want to talk about a fantasy reality, please join a role playing thread. The abortion rights debate is real, and it is based in real, existing law. We are talking about what is, not what you wish for

To make an aruguement, you must demonstrate that if the proposed position would not be out of line with current legal rights pracitise.


As Dempublicents pointed out, there are reasons why it cannot, chief among those reasons being that slavery is illegal.

We are talking about abortion, not slavery. Please elaborate as to how abortion is akin to slavery


There are also very good reasons why it SHOULD not, chief among them being (A) that slavery is both illegal and unethical, and (B) that giving such power to any government would constitute absolute tyranny and a society in which NO human life is safe, born or unborn. It would put us all -- including you -- at the mercy of a dictator's whims (even if that dictator was a congress or a faceless "system").

You will then have to demonstrate why restiricitng freedom of movement is not tyranical where as restricting freedom of security of person is.


This remark makes sense only if you do not think women are human and that, thus, denying them rights is not denying human rights.

Rights are restricted where apropriate. You do not have right to freedom of speech when it comes to enciting viloence. You do not have the right to freedom of ascoation in so far as to intrude on someone elses (EG a Nazi rally does not have the right to intrude on a Synogouge, even if it wishes to asscoatie there). Rights always have clarifications. A womans right to bodily security is no more valuable than a fetus's right to bodyly secrity. But for the woman to exercise her right to bodily security, she revokes the fetus's right to life.


What you propose would enslave women to be used by fetuses, or by the state claiming to act on behalf of fetuses. The parties and the motives don't matter. What counts is that a woman is told she has no right to control her own body because someone else is using it for their own purposes. Forcing any person to submit their bodies to be used by others against their will -- whether by forcing blood/organ donation or forcing women to carry pregnancies -- is slavery, and there is no more clear human rights violation than that.

She is not forced to do this. It is she who entered into the situation where it is possible that this situation would result. Forcing her to carry the child is no diffrent than the police forcing us all not to kill our next door neighbough.

Someone else is using it for their own purposes. Someone who was implictly invited in. While she may have used contreception, that is rather a moot point

To return to my previous analogy

"I am going to throw you into a chamber, then I am going to run around and try and stop you entering said chamber. I however am not certian that I will stop you but I will try. If you do enter it, it will seal and the only way out is either to wait for 9 months or for me to kill you, or for you to die of other causes"



A) There is no right to freedom of movement in the US.

Two points here

1) the US is not the world. Do not assume that
- I am a citizen of the US
- The US is the role model of all legal codes on this matter

2) There is also no right to bodily security in US law, unless you can specificly demonstrate otherwise.


The right we have is freedom of association and peaceful assembly. It is not the same. Americans have traditionally been free to travel without governmental permission, but this is nothing more than tradition. It is not codified in law, and it has always been limited by private property rights, as you yourself point out. Your argument about rights would be stronger if you knew what rights are and which ones we actually have.

Freedom of movement is a human right, and while it is not nessecealy codified in law, that does not make it any less aplicaple.


B) Your own mention of trespass invalidates this example as a support for your argument. Indeed, we are free to associate with whomever we like, but not wherever we like. We are free to assemble peaceably, but not on someone else's property without their permission. However, in any event, in the case of pregnancy, your example gets flipped on its head. In regards to pregnancy, I, the woman, am not the trespassing wanderer. I am the property owner, and it is the fetus that is trespassing on my property, i.e., my uterus. As such, I have the right both to bar it from entering and to expel it after it enters.

You fail to understand the point I was making. My point was that rights that we have are often curtailed for obvious reasons. EG Freedom of movement is curtailed by trespassing. In the same way it would not be illegimate to curtail the right to bodily security in the case of abortion, the argument being that another's bodily security and life is at risk. A life I may further point out, that the woman (in the majority of cases) willingly created. She may have not intended to have a child, but that is not the point. A long time ago, magicans perfoming the trick of catching the bullet in their teeth used live ammunition, and the assistiant intended to miss. Occasionally they didnt miss. Their intentions are not relevent to whether or not they have commited a crime, but merely what crime was commited (manslaughter instead of murder).


A property owner has the right to expell not only trespassers but also invited guests from his property at any time, for any reason he likes. If we are to use property rights as an example, then why should I have less right of ownership over my own body than I do over a house or a plot of land? Which is more vital to my existence? A house, or my own body? Which will cause me more damage if it is commandeered by someone else against my wishes? Even if my refusal to share this property would result in another's injury or death, I cannot be forced to share my property without just compensation. If the state takes my land, I can be compensated, but you offer no compensation for forcing me to allow a fetus to gestate inside me. Indeed, how could I be compensated for the physical risks of being forced to endure 9 months of pregnancy? And what if those risks result in serious illness or permanent injury? How then will I be compensated for being forced to suffer them against my will? Even if you only claim the right to use my body for your uses temporarily, how will you return it to its original condition when you are done with it, as is typically required when property is taken temporarily for special uses? You cannot.

You invited the guest onto your territory, knowing full well what may happen. It is not the childs fault if the situation arrises, and thus there is no reason why it should be held responsable.


Bodily integrity is a concept that reaches beyond the limits of property rights because there is more at stake in it than in mere property. Therefore, the right of a person to be secure in their person cannot be limited the way property rights can.

A subjective position.


Not being permitted to do something is not the same as being forced to do something

You are attempting to make a negative prohibition (not being allowed to incite violence) set a precedent for a positive requirement (a woman who becomes pregnant must carry the pregnancy). You may attempt to disquise this by saying that what you are talking about is a negative prohibition (women may not terminate a pregnancy) but this is a distinction without a difference. By not allowing me to do one thing (terminate pregnancy) you are, in fact, forcing me to do another thing (carry pregnancy).

In the same way that forcing you not to do something (Kill people) forces you to do something (restrain certian vilonet tendencies). Which we already accept.


The limitation on free speech example is not the same. If I am not allowed to incite violence, I still have the option to say something else or say nothing. But if I have an unwanted pregnancy, and I am not allowed to terminate it, then I have no options. I am forced to carry the pregnancy.

That is because free speech is far more varied in its nature, but it is still a right and thus it still stands. This is a specific example. But the point still stands. Free speech is restricted, and so can the right to bodily integrity in the case of abortion


The limitation of free speech limits my freedom but still leaves me with some freedom and several choices. A prohibition against abortion takes away all my options and leaves me with no freedom and no choices. They are not equivalent.

That is because free speech is a general concept. Bodily security is also a general concept. What you are doing is comparing the general right to the specific prohabition. EG comparing the right to bodily security to the criminalisation of encitiement to viloence. It does not work. What you should compare is the right to free speech and the right to bodily secrity. In both cases both can have legitmate restrictions. And there are plenty of other things that you can do with bodily secrity. The reason it seems specifc is that we are focusing on the reprodcutive aspect.


A pregnant woman does not have to pump oxygen into her uterus every hour to keep the pregnancy going. Once again you are comparing apples to oranges, only in reverse this time. You are trying to make a positive action (putting in codes) stand in for a passive non-action (being pregnant). And you have to make up some ridiculous fantasy scenario to do it, too. It doesn't hold water.

Fine. Change putting in codes to "walking with a slight limp in my left and right legs alternately". The analogy is the same still


EDIT: I should also point out that the positive action (putting in codes) holds no risk to me, but the passive non-action (being pregnant) most certainly does. I lose nothing by putting in your supposed codes. I stand to lose a great deal, up to and including my own life, by carrying a pregnancy.

Irrelevent. It was your choice to throw the person. If you were so worried about the possible costs, the person should not have been thrown.

I like the way the anti-choice crowd often likes to claim that there is such a thing as a right to life even though it is also an anti-choice argument that Roe v Wade is wrong because there is no such thing as a right to privacy because it's not in the Constitution. Guess what? There is no right to life in the Constitution, either.

1) Kindly refrain from assuming I'm American. Not all of the world wish to live under you lealistic monolith of a constitution.

2) The constitution also does not contain a right to bodily security, unless you can demostrate otherwise

3) "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" - implict right to life

To make an aruguement, you must demonstrate that if the proposed position would not be out of line with current legal rights pracitise.
Which you failed to do. Thank you for conceding the point.

We are talking about abortion, not slavery. Please elaborate as to how abortion is akin to slavery
Sigh. I said BANNING abortion is akin slavery.

You will then have to demonstrate why restiricitng freedom of movement is not tyranical where as restricting freedom of security of person is.
Sigh. I have already explained that there is no such thing as "freedom of movement."

Rights are restricted where apropriate. You do not have right to freedom of speech when it comes to enciting viloence. You do not have the right to freedom of ascoation in so far as to intrude on someone elses (EG a Nazi rally does not have the right to intrude on a Synogouge, even if it wishes to asscoatie there).
I bolded the part that invalidates your argument. You have failed to show us how it is appropriate to take away a woman's right to bodily integrity and security in her own person just because someone else wants to use her body for their own purposes.

Rights always have clarifications. A womans right to bodily security is no more valuable than a fetus's right to bodyly secrity. But for the woman to exercise her right to bodily security, she revokes the fetus's right to life.
You call that a clarification? Clarifications are supposed to make things clearer. The only thing that your remark makes clear is that you do not understand what a right is, what rights the law protects, and that there is no more a legal right to life than there is a legal right to freedom of movement.

The fact is that, in real life, my right to PRESERVE my life trumps your right to HAVE your life IF the only way you can do so is by taking over my body. You are just plain not permitted to take over my body to serve your needs, even if you would otherwise die. It is that simple. You have failed to show any reason why this very clear rule should not apply to embryos/fetuses.

She is not forced to do this. It is she who entered into the situation where it is possible that this situation would result. Forcing her to carry the child is no diffrent than the police forcing us all not to kill our next door neighbough.
You cannot equate a rule that says I CANNOT DO SOMETHING to a rule that says I MUST DO SOMETHING. Preventing me from killing my neighbor IS NOT the same as forcing me to carry a pregnancy and give birth.

And by the way, if my neighbor was trying to support himself by attaching himself to my body and siphoning off nutrients and energy from my body, and was doing it without my permission, I WOULD have the absolute right to kill the parasitic bastard. It would fall under self-defense.

Someone else is using it for their own purposes. Someone who was implictly invited in. While she may have used contreception, that is rather a moot point
Moot? Now you are being absolutely dishonest. How is it moot? Because it clearly defeats your argument by proving that a pregnancy can be unwanted?

The bottom line is "someone else" has NO RIGHT to use my body. Period. I own this body. I decide how it gets used. I have that right, power and authority, and it extends even to changing my mind and revoking an invitation. So even if I originally planned to get pregnant, I still have the right to change my plans as needed.

To return to my previous analogy

"I am going to throw you into a chamber, then I am going to run around and try and stop you entering said chamber. I however am not certian that I will stop you but I will try. If you do enter it, it will seal and the only way out is either to wait for 9 months or for me to kill you, or for you to die of other causes"
To avoid repeating myself, I refer you to my earlier two posts as to why this is nonsense.



Two points here

1) the US is not the world. Do not assume that
- I am a citizen of the US
- The US is the role model of all legal codes on this matter

2) There is also no right to bodily security in US law, unless you can specificly demonstrate otherwise.

http://www.house.gov/house/Educate.shtml

I refer you to Amendments 4, 5, and 13 of the US Constitution.

Also, if you are a UK citizen, then you may claim your country to be the legal model, since British law is the model for US law, and both British and US law are the models for just about all but a minority of other countries. As far as I know, abortion is legal and regulated by similar rules in the UK, the US, most of Europe, most of Asia, and most of South America, too.

You may look up your country's rules here:
http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm

Freedom of movement is a human right, and while it is not nessecealy codified in law, that does not make it any less aplicaple.
Nonsense. You are talking about law. You are talking about why a woman doesn't have a right to control her own body if she is pregnant. You are talking about the state having a right to control and use the bodies of human beings. How do you propose that be done, except by law? Yet you appeal to non-laws to support your argument? Please, give us a break.

You fail to understand the point I was making. My point was that rights that we have are often curtailed for obvious reasons. EG Freedom of movement is curtailed by trespassing. In the same way it would not be illegimate to curtail the right to bodily security in the case of abortion, the argument being that another's bodily security and life is at risk. A life I may further point out, that the woman (in the majority of cases) willingly created. She may have not intended to have a child, but that is not the point. A long time ago, magicans perfoming the trick of catching the bullet in their teeth used live ammunition, and the assistiant intended to miss. Occasionally they didnt miss. Their intentions are not relevent to whether or not they have commited a crime, but merely what crime was commited (manslaughter instead of murder).
So now you compare pregnancy to a magic trick, and abortion to a crime. Only it's not a crime, of course. You poor dear.

I understood your point very well. I disagreed with it because it is based on invalid assumptions and misinformation.

You invited the guest onto your territory, knowing full well what may happen.
You are basing your entire argument on an assumption based on an assumption. You first assume that I chose to become pregnant, and then you assume that I cannot change my mind. None of that reflects reality.

It is not the childs fault if the situation arrises, and thus there is no reason why it should be held responsable.
It is not being held responsible. A "child" does not exist at the time an abortion may take place. What is there is an embryo, and it is not being held responsible, either.

A subjective position.
No, not a subjective position. A description of how the law works.

In the same way that forcing you not to do something (Kill people) forces you to do something (restrain certian vilonet tendencies). Which we already accept.
Speak for yourself. I do not have violent tendencies.

That is because free speech is far more varied in its nature, but it is still a right and thus it still stands. This is a specific example. But the point still stands. Free speech is restricted, and so can the right to bodily integrity in the case of abortion
No. I explained how the two are not equivalent. That means they do not work the same way and cannot be treated the same way. You have failed to show any reason why the opposite should be true. Just repeating your original statement does not defend your failed argument.

That is because free speech is a general concept. Bodily security is also a general concept. What you are doing is comparing the general right to the specific prohabition. EG comparing the right to bodily security to the criminalisation of encitiement to viloence. It does not work. What you should compare is the right to free speech and the right to bodily secrity. In both cases both can have legitmate restrictions. And there are plenty of other things that you can do with bodily secrity. The reason it seems specifc is that we are focusing on the reprodcutive aspect.
This paragraph does not make any sense. You don't want me to compare restrictions on free speech and bodily security, but you want to claim that they are the same because they can both be restricted? That is yet more nonsense.

Plus, you have still not shown any reason beyond your own personal opinions why bodily security should be restricted. The fact that free speech can be restricted does not in any way imply that bodily security can be restricted because WHEN WE COMPARE THEM, we see they are not the same.

Fine. Change putting in codes to "walking with a slight limp in my left and right legs alternately". The analogy is the same still
Still just as false.


Irrelevent. It was your choice to throw the person. If you were so worried about the possible costs, the person should not have been thrown.
FINALLY, we have returned to the Filthy Whore(tm) argument. This dog won't hunt, friend. Give it up.

Pro-choice.

I celebrate my birthday as the beginning of my life. I don't know about the rest of you.

1) Kindly refrain from assuming I'm American. Not all of the world wish to live under you lealistic monolith of a constitution.
See my immediately preceding post. I linked to a site that lists abortion rules in all countries with available information. You may find yours there and clarify your position for everyone here.

If you are from the UK, the rules are not so different as to matter all that much. I happen to know that, but even if I didn't, I could deduce it from your insistence on arguing on the basis of laws you admit do not exist.

2) The constitution also does not contain a right to bodily security, unless you can demostrate otherwise
See my immediately preceding post in which I linked to a US government site that posts the text of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments.

3) "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" - implict right to life
I love the word "implicit." /sarcasm/

But whose life are they talking about? And whose liberty? And whose property? I am already in possession and in danger of being denied three out of three of those. The fetus is implied to have only one. I win, if only on points. This quote adds nothing to your argument.

You know, if you don't want people to assume you are a US citizen, you might try basing your argument on a total misunderstanding of your own country's laws, rather than mine.

Pro-choice.

I celebrate my birthday as the beginning of my life. I don't know about the rest of you.
My birthday is when my history starts. Before that, there was no me.

Can I just say something?

Fetus=/= Child

fetus=parasite


These two things hold until after Month 6.

Or in some cases up past the 30th year of life. ;) LOL