NationStates Jolt Archive

For two reasons. (I am in Ireland by the way)

1) It's not the government’s role to mandate whether or not a person can make a personal choice to do what they choose with their own body. While I think that abortion is wrong, I also think that it is wrong for the government to wage a war on abortion. The best way to stop abortion is via informal social pressure and not by central government making more arbitrary laws. In Ireland, abortion is illegal except when a woman's life is at risk. This violates the EU constitution and various other common laws made in Brussels.

2) Abortion prevents unwanted children from being born. Crime in the US fell after 1993 because abortions were legalised in 1973. This meant that fewer children born after 1973 were growing up into potential criminals. In Ireland, where abortion is still effectively illegal, we have the highest rate of violent and property crime in Europe apart from in UK. This is because thousands of children are born into families where they are not properly looked after.

2) Abortion prevents unwanted children from being born. Crime in the US fell after 1993 because abortions were legalised in 1973. This meant that fewer children born after 1973 were growing up into potential criminals. In Ireland, where abortion is still effectively illegal, we have the highest rate of violent and property crime in Europe apart from in UK. This is because thousands of children are born into families where they are not properly looked after.

He's against abortion and he gets it... it can't be that hard to believe/accept people!

I support the Italian Army breakdancing their way across Asia and the Middle East.

Damn, I thought this was about Kang and Kodos -

"Abortions for some. Miniature American flags for others!"


"Yaaaayyyyy!"

Hi. You must be new here. The last time we had an abortion debate was (for good reason) months ago. Abortion is what as known as a "grenade" by flame warriors. It just blows up in everybody's face whenever they try to talk about it.

Also: What about the child? Doesn't anyone care about them?

For two reasons. (I am in Ireland by the way)

1) It's not the government’s role to mandate whether or not a person can make a personal choice to do what they choose with their own body. While I think that abortion is wrong, I also think that it is wrong for the government to wage a war on abortion.
I concur.

1) It's not the government’s role to mandate whether or not a person can make a personal choice to do what they choose with their own body.

Too bad it's not the mother's body: the child has different DNA.

While I think that abortion is wrong, I also think that it is wrong for the government to wage a war on abortion.

Why? If it's murder (which Scripture and reason say it is) then the government not only has the right but the responsibility to wage war against it.

The best way to stop abortion is via informal social pressure and not by central government making more arbitrary laws. In Ireland, abortion is illegal except when a woman's life is at risk. This violates the EU constitution and various other common laws made in Brussels.

Good for Ireland. It's standing up for morality even when the majority is against it.

2) Abortion prevents unwanted children from being born.

Irrelevant. Wantedness does not determine value.

Crime in the US fell after 1993 because abortions were legalised in 1973. This meant that fewer children born after 1973 were growing up into potential criminals.

Oh, please. This is pure speculation. Yes, it might be true that there were fewer criminals, but you cannot possibly link that to abortion.

In Ireland, where abortion is still effectively illegal, we have the highest rate of violent and property crime in Europe apart from in UK. This is because thousands of children are born into families where they are not properly looked after.

So let's okay their murders.

Or, we could do the moral thing and through charities support their families and begin teaching the responsibilities of families and marriages.

For two reasons. (I am in Ireland by the way)

1) It's not the government’s role to mandate whether or not a person can make a personal choice to do what they choose with their own body. While I think that abortion is wrong, I also think that it is wrong for the government to wage a war on abortion. The best way to stop abortion is via informal social pressure and not by central government making more arbitrary laws. In Ireland, abortion is illegal except when a woman's life is at risk. This violates the EU constitution and various other common laws made in Brussels.

2) Abortion prevents unwanted children from being born. Crime in the US fell after 1993 because abortions were legalised in 1973. This meant that fewer children born after 1973 were growing up into potential criminals. In Ireland, where abortion is still effectively illegal, we have the highest rate of violent and property crime in Europe apart from in UK. This is because thousands of children are born into families where they are not properly looked after.

Ok, I should've read this more throughly. I just assumed you were the average new person and gave my average response to the new person.

If you don't want kids growing up in homes where they can't be taken care of, don't kill them! Provide welfare, along with social services such as government sponsored child care. Violence isn't always the answer.

And when people don't listen to "informal social pressure", sometimes the government HAS to make laws.

Also: Since when did anyone follow the EU's rules?

Too bad it's not the mother's body: the child has different DNA.

Um...you do know where babies grow, right? Inside of women's bodies?

Um...you do know where babies grow, right? Inside of women's bodies?

Yeah, but you're killing the baby. Another being. Because somebody else wants you to. And believe me, just because the baby doesn't have a working mind doesn't mean he doesn't have the want to live.

I support the Italian Army breakdancing their way across Asia and the Middle East.

That is the most random thing anyone has every said. Way to hijack the thread.

Or, we could do the moral thing and through charities support their families and begin teaching the responsibilities of families and marriages.

Good post all around, but this part gets to me a bit. Charities, ehh, not the best idea. You see, charities are privately owned. It's very hard to trust them with your money. For all we know 10% of the money could be going to helping people. The other 90% could be going to paying the mortgage on a gigantic mansion! Welfare is much more safe, since it's controlled by the government. And yes, the government is much more suprisingly trustworthy than private enterprise.

Good post all around, but this part gets to me a bit. Charities, ehh, not the best idea. You see, charities are privately owned. It's very hard to trust them with your money. For all we know 10% of the money could be going to helping people. The other 90% could be going to paying the mortgage on a gigantic mansion! Welfare is much more safe, since it's controlled by the government. And yes, the government is much more suprisingly trustworthy than private enterprise.

Yes, I too find it surprising that the government can be trustworthy! :p

Yeah, but you're killing the baby. Another being. Because somebody else wants you to. And believe me, just because the baby doesn't have a working mind doesn't mean he doesn't have the want to live.
None of which has anything to do with what the OP said. But thanks for sharing.

That is the most random thing anyone has every said. Way to hijack the thread.

Yay! I'd like to thank the Academy...

I envision the Italian Army, all dressed like Mussolini, doing that floor spin move across the desert, in perfect columns, while the Picard Song plays in the background.

None of which has anything to do with what the OP said. But thanks for sharing.

Yeah but, I'm just saying, 'cause the whole excuse "It's the woman's body! Let her do what she wants with it!" is getting dry, since we have to remember that there is a LIVING BABY in there. Even if it has the mind power of algae, it still wants to live, just like any other living being. Therefore abortion IS techincally MURDER.

Hi. You must be new here. The last time we had an abortion debate was (for good reason) months ago. Abortion is what as known as a "grenade" by flame warriors. It just blows up in everybody's face whenever they try to talk about it.

Actually there have been two massive ones quite recently (go see the pro-life, hypocrisy, pro-war thread).

Also: What about the child? Doesn't anyone care about them?

No.

In my weakened, extremely tired state I somehow misread the title of this thread as "I support abolitions on demand." So, naturally, in my confusion of not understanding what the hell you're talking about I clicked, and upon discovering this, I laughed at myself and felt that I'd share my goofyness with y'all.



Although, every time I see one of those damnable truck-signs with dead fetuses on it, I increasingly move leftward on this issue.

Actually there have been two massive ones quite recently (go see the pro-life, hypocrisy, pro-war thread).



No.

Well, that was more of a hypocrisy thread than anything else, but whatever.

And you don't care about the children? How would you like it if someone wnet up to you right now and blew your head off, all because your mother wanted to?

Yeah but, I'm just saying, 'cause the whole excuse "It's the woman's body! Let her do what she wants with it!" is getting dry, since we have to remember that there is a LIVING BABY in there. Even if it has the mind power of algae, it still wants to live, just like any other living being.

So? If a born human being wants to live inside my body or harvest my body for their own purposes, even to prolong their own life, I don't automatically let them. Why should I grant special rights to fetuses?


Therefore abortion IS techincally MURDER.
No, murder is unlawful killing of a human person. If abortion is legal, then it's not murder.

Therefore abortion IS techincally MURDER.

Murder? (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder)
Main Entry: mur·der
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Bam.

Edit:
And you don't care about the children? How would you like it if someone wnet up to you right now and blew your head off, all because your mother wanted to?
Not caring about unborn embryos doesn't imply I don't care about anything else. But that doesn't mean I would like or dislike it; I would be dead, and incapable of either. Which is quite close to the state the embryo is in before being aborted, so never mind.

Yeah but, I'm just saying, 'cause the whole excuse "It's the woman's body! Let her do what she wants with it!" is getting dry, since we have to remember that there is a LIVING BABY in there. Even if it has the mind power of algae, it still wants to live, just like any other living being. Therefore abortion IS techincally MURDER.
Um, you just refuted your own point. Do you disagree with the killing of algae?

Murder? (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder)

Bam.

Oh come on. The fetus IS a person. And just because it's "lawful" doesn't mean it's wrong and should be illegalized.

Um, you just refuted your own point. Do you disagree with the killing of algae?

Uhh... It's impossible NOT to kill algae in one way or another, but I'm saying that the baby wants to live, just like any other living being, and since it IS a human (which so many of us seem to hold in such higher regard than any other living being), should we not let it live?

So? If a born human being wants to live inside my body or harvest my body for their own purposes, even to prolong their own life, I don't automatically let them. Why should I grant special rights to fetuses?


Maybe because the fetus had no choice where he/she would be born, and because there's no way for him/her to be transferred to another being? You really are acting like the fetus has a choice in this whole thing.

Yeah but, I'm just saying, 'cause the whole excuse "It's the woman's body! Let her do what she wants with it!" is getting dry, since we have to remember that there is a LIVING BABY in there. Even if it has the mind power of algae, it still wants to live, just like any other living being. Therefore abortion IS techincally MURDER.
But you haven't stated at which point the cells become a zygote then a foetus, which indicates the stage of development the unborn infant is at.

The 'cells' are the first step after conception, but aren't even a zygote for the first two weeks until they implant themselves in the uterus. Even then, the zygote doesn't necessarily want to live.

The majority of miscarriages happen in the first trimester, often without the mother even knowing she was pregnant. This is also when the majority of abortion happen, and this includes the usage of the morning-after pill, which targets the egg which has been fertilised, and prevents it from implanting itself in the uterus.

How can it be technically be murder if the body expels it like a parasite? How can it be technically murder if the unborn infant is only a zygote and lacks all its core senses? At which point does abortion constitute murder? Probably at the point when the unborn foetus is developed enough to survive outside of the womb... then again, this is just my opinion.

Fetal Development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_development) - my favourite link explaining foetus development from its pre-zygote state to birth.

But, consider this: the miscarriage is God giving the woman an abortion.

In fact, if I see another one of those damn sign-trucks, I'll support mandatory abortions.

Maybe because the fetus had no choice where he/she would be born, and because there's no way for him/her to be transferred to another being?

A kidney patient didn't choose to go into renal failure. Does that mean that I am obligated to give him my kidney if I'm a potential donor?

Are you prepared to give your body parts away to anybody who needs them through no fault of their own?


You really are acting like the fetus has a choice in this whole thing.
No, I'm acting like the woman has a choice in the whole thing. It doesn't matter what the fetus may or may not choose. No human being has the right to choose to harvest my body to prolong their own life, no matter what their reasons or their need. Why should a fetus have rights that no human being has?

Oh come on. The fetus IS a person. And just because it's "lawful" doesn't mean it's wrong and should be illegalized.

Not my fault you used the wrong word.
And it doesn't meet my criteria for personhood. Sorry.
And just because you say it's wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal, or even that I should think it's wrong.
And why do I keep arguing in these threads? I live in the civilised world where this is a non-issue.

Uhh... It's impossible NOT to kill algae in one way or another, but I'm saying that the baby wants to live, just like any other living being, and since it IS a human (which so many of us seem to hold in such higher regard than any other living being), should we not let it live?
I've lost count of the times I've posted this, and I haven't received a satisfactory answer yet.

The human has rights and is held in high regard because it is significantly more intelligent than an animal.
A fetus is not particularly intelligent.
Therefore, a fetus has no rights.

It's not a damn human, ffs. A human is something that has human behaviour. If you created a robot that acted like a human, I'd say for all intents and purposes it is 'human'.

Must.... Resist.... Urge.... TO FLAME!

*Runs away before he gets banned...... Again*

Must.... Resist.... Urge.... TO FLAME!

*Runs away before he gets banned...... Again*
I'm sorry if you are feeling so upset that you would want to flame. It seems like you are interested in this subject, so I hope you can return after you cool down a bit.

Too bad it's not the mother's body: the child has different DNA.

What child?

Why? If it's murder (which Scripture and reason say it is) then the government not only has the right but the responsibility to wage war against it.

F*ck scripture


Good for Ireland. It's standing up for morality even when the majority is against it.

Ireland is just one big success story isn't it.

Irrelevant. Wantedness does not determine value.

Tell that to my economics professor

Oh, please. This is pure speculation. Yes, it might be true that there were fewer criminals, but you cannot possibly link that to abortion.

Yes, there are a lot of other things that could have contributed to that.

So let's okay their murders.

Lets ok their freedom

Or, we could do the moral thing and through charities support their families and begin teaching the responsibilities of families and marriages.

I consider abortion to be the moral thing

Um, you just refuted your own point. Do you disagree with the killing of algae?

You kill millions of organisms just by existing, New Ritlina is a killer :rolleyes:

Also: What about the child? Doesn't anyone care about them?

Nope. It's Faceless.

And you don't care about the children? How would you like it if someone wnet up to you right now and blew your head off, all because your mother wanted to?

I have the capacity to understand that. I'm also not currently inside my mother feeding off of her. And if I was I'm sure she wouldn't be too impressed.

I killed a large family of Bacteria when I cleaned my toilet yesterday! :p I aborted their offspring.

Uhh... It's impossible NOT to kill algae in one way or another, but I'm saying that the baby wants to live, just like any other living being, and since it IS a human (which so many of us seem to hold in such higher regard than any other living being), should we not let it live?

At which point does the baby want to live?

A kidney patient didn't choose to go into renal failure. Does that mean that I am obligated to give him my kidney if I'm a potential donor?

Are you prepared to give your body parts away to anybody who needs them through no fault of their own?

No, I'm acting like the woman has a choice in the whole thing. It doesn't matter what the fetus may or may not choose. No human being has the right to choose to harvest my body to prolong their own life, no matter what their reasons or their need. Why should a fetus have rights that no human being has?

QFT

Hmm, OK pro-lifers. What if the mother aborts to save herself? Is that wrong too?

At which point does abortion constitute murder? Probably at the point when the unborn foetus is developed enough to survive outside of the womb... then again, this is just my opinion.

They can die or we can kick 'em out and see how they go?

EDIT: It's late and I'm getting a tad spiteful towards our unborn wise men. I'm out.

Hmm, OK pro-lifers. What if the mother aborts to save herself? Is that wrong too?

No, it's not. But if the mother is at no risk, the baby should be allowed to live. If she doesn't want it, she can hand it off to child services.

I'm sorry if you are feeling so upset that you would want to flame. It seems like you are interested in this subject, so I hope you can return after you cool down a bit.

Yeah, when people decided that a human life is worth about as much as tissue paper, I get more than a little pissed.

No, it's not.
Why? Why do you choose the mother's life over the "baby"? If, as you claim, they have equal right to life, then why do you assume that the mother should be allowed to save herself at the expense of the "baby"?

Yeah, when people decided that a human life is worth about as much as tissue paper, I get more than a little pissed.
Well, that's something I can help with. I absolutely do not believe that human life is worth about as much as tissue paper. I place much greater value on human life than I do on tissue paper. So, at least when talking to me, you don't have to worry about that.

Why? Why do you choose the mother's life over the "baby"? If, as you claim, they have equal right to life, then why do you assume that the mother should be allowed to save herself at the expense of the "baby"?

Because the mother can produce more offspring if she survives. Usually when the mother's life is at risk, the baby's usually is too. Actually, I think that's in ALL cases. So we have two choices.

1. Let both the mother and the baby die by not letting them abort.

2. Abort the baby (Which, if it had survived, would've killed both), and allow the mother to produce more offspring.

Because the mother can produce more offspring if she survives.

So you do assign greater value to the woman's life than you do to the fetus', provided she is fertile and will remain so?


Usually when the mother's life is at risk, the baby's usually is too. Actually, I think that's in ALL cases.

You are incorrect.


So we have two choices.

1. Let both the mother and the baby die by not letting them abort.

2. Abort the baby (Which, if it had survived, would've killed both), and allow the mother to produce more offspring.
What if the mother does not ever intend to produce more offspring? What if the abortion procedure will save her life, but she will most likely never be able to carry another pregnancy to term?

Alternatively, what if carrying her current pregnancy to term will injure a woman in such a way that she will never be able to have another child? Should she be allowed to abort the current pregnancy to safeguard her future child-bearing ability?

Yeah, when people decided that a human life is worth about as much as tissue paper, I get more than a little pissed.

To me it depends on the individual human how much their life is worth. Some are worth considerably more than all the tea in China, some less than the dust I hoover from my carpet.

A human life, all by itself, is not special or rare (frankly, there are already too many of them cluttering the place up). It has no intrinsic value. It's what you do with it that counts.

Yeah, when people decided that a human life is worth about as much as tissue paper, I get more than a little pissed.

Human life is pretty much expendable... there's plenty more where it came from. What isn't expendable are the individual minds within the humans. An unborn child is basically a blank slate. Worthless.

EDIT: This is basically what CD said in the above post

Because the mother can produce more offspring if she survives.

But she can choose not too. That child could also not produce children. It is a gamble unless you can see into the future.

Good post all around, but this part gets to me a bit. Charities, ehh, not the best idea. You see, charities are privately owned. It's very hard to trust them with your money. For all we know 10% of the money could be going to helping people. The other 90% could be going to paying the mortgage on a gigantic mansion! Welfare is much more safe, since it's controlled by the government. And yes, the government is much more suprisingly trustworthy than private enterprise.

Charities are highly governmentally regulated, I assure you. If someone is fleecing off the top to pay for a luxury house, they are doing it illegally.

So you do assign greater value to the woman's life than you do to the fetus', provided she is fertile and will remain so?


You are incorrect.


What if the mother does not ever intend to produce more offspring? What if the abortion procedure will save her life, but she will most likely never be able to carry another pregnancy to term?

Alternatively, what if carrying her current pregnancy to term will injure a woman in such a way that she will never be able to have another child? Should she be allowed to abort the current pregnancy to safeguard her future child-bearing ability?

To the woman's, provided she will remain fertile.

Evidence?

Well, still going on the idea that if a mother's life is in danger, then the baby's life is too, the baby should be aborted so that the mother can live. Of course, if I am wrong about the idea that a baby's life is in danger if the mother's life is too, then the mother should die so that new life can be created. New life is much more important than old life.

Well, I'd rather not take any chances. I'd rather know that this life can be born than hoping that the mother would have a child later.

Also: Nice one Dryks. Calling human life WORTHLESS?! Dear god... A

Also: CD, how do we know what the person who is being born will be worth? Should we not see first, rather than killing it out right? (Of course I believe all humans have equal worth, but that's another story)

But she can choose not too. That child could also not produce children. It is a gamble unless you can see into the future.

Yeah, unfortunately it is. But I'd rather gamble then give up.

Also: CD, how do we know what the person who is being born will be worth? Should we not see first, rather than killing it out right? (Of course I believe all humans have equal worth, but that's another story)

We don't. And no. Why make somebody else miserable - reduce the value their life has for them - on a gamble?

We don't. And no. Why make somebody else miserable - reduce the value their life has for them - on a gamble?

Wait, we'll be making the mother miserable by not allowing her to abort? I said handing the child over to Social Services is fine, it's not like she'll have to take care of the child.

Wait, we'll be making the mother miserable by not allowing her to abort? I said handing the child over to Social Services is fine, it's not like she'll have to take care of the child.

But, clearly, she thinks that abortion is the better option or she wouldn't choose it.

Wait, we'll be making the mother miserable by not allowing her to abort? I said handing the child over to Social Services is fine, it's not like she'll have to take care of the child.
Handing the child over to Social Services isn't always in the best interest of the child as the child may not end up in a good home. The child will be caught in the mess that is bureaucratic red tape.

ok 1 abortion is so completly wrong who has the right to take the life of a child and these are the most defensless people they have no vioces to say mom i love you or ow that hurts as you kill the babe.murder is defined by many states in the us as the intencional killing of a person or a fetus how can a mother knowingly kill her own child abortion is surly one of the main reasons that there is a moral problem in our country and in this world to allow a mother to kill her child and then make her live with that it is hard on them and couses alot of phycological problems

if you are a moter who had an abortion or a father or a memeber of a family that lost a child to abortion plese google the silent no more foundation to tell all that you regret your abortion

Wait, we'll be making the mother miserable by not allowing her to abort?

you ever been pregnant?

ok 1 abortion is so completly wrong who has the right to take the life of a child and these are the most defensless people they have no vioces to say mom i love you or ow that hurts as you kill the babe.murder is defined by many states in the us as the intencional killing of a person or a fetus how can a mother knowingly kill her own child abortion is surly one of the main reasons that there is a moral problem in our country and in this world to allow a mother to kill her child and then make her live with that it is hard on them and couses alot of phycological problems

if you are a moter who had an abortion or a father or a memeber of a family that lost a child to abortion plese google the silent no more foundation to tell all that you regret your abortion

First thing you need to be a good NSGer:

Spelling.

Second thing:

Grammar.

Thank you.

you ever been pregnant?

That's just physical pain. Not pain like CD is suggesting, I.E. having to take care of a child.

To the woman's, provided she will remain fertile.

So, since you yourself admit that you do NOT view a fetus as equal to a born human person, then why do you get mad at others who also do so?


Evidence?

For the fact that there are times when a baby could survive but the mother would die? You actually need sources for this?


Well, still going on the idea that if a mother's life is in danger, then the baby's life is too, the baby should be aborted so that the mother can live. Of course, if I am wrong about the idea that a baby's life is in danger if the mother's life is too, then the mother should die so that new life can be created. New life is much more important than old life.

Ah. Well, at least you're honest. Born human females are worth less than fetuses.

Don't rush to bear his children all at once, ladies! :D


Also: CD, how do we know what the person who is being born will be worth? Should we not see first, rather than killing it out right? (Of course I believe all humans have equal worth, but that's another story)
You clearly don't view all humans as having equal worth, and you say as much two different times in this post. First you say that you view a woman's life as worth more than a fetus if she will bear future children, and then later you say that "new life is much more important than old life."

Wait, we'll be making the mother miserable by not allowing her to abort?
I can personally assure you that forced pregnancy would make me extremely miserable. Being denied the right to abort would not only make me miserable, it would also put my life in serious danger, since I would be prepared to go very far to end the pregnancy. If I were not able to end the pregnancy, I would seriously consider ending my life.

Well, still going on the idea that if a mother's life is in danger, then the baby's life is too, the baby should be aborted so that the mother can live. Of course, if I am wrong about the idea that a baby's life is in danger if the mother's life is too, then the mother should die so that new life can be created. New life is much more important than old life.

How is new life always more important? You shouldn't be generalising. That mother could be the greatest mind of our time... you would spend her life gambling on the outcome of another?

Also: Nice one Dryk. Calling human life WORTHLESS?! Dear god... A

A human with a blank mind is near worthless (I shouldn't have written an absolute, I apologise). Worth changes with growth for better or worse. But regardless potential is a non-negotiable currency.

Yeah, unfortunately it is. But I'd rather gamble then give up.

It should be the mother's choice whether or not she wants to take that risk

That's just physical pain. Not pain like CD is suggesting, I.E. having to take care of a child.

I guess that's a "no" to my question then.

ok 1 abortion is so completly wrong who has the right to take the life of a child and these are the most defensless people they have no vioces to say mom i love you or ow that hurts as you kill the babe.murder is defined by many states in the us as the intencional killing of a person or a fetus how can a mother knowingly kill her own child abortion is surly one of the main reasons that there is a moral problem in our country and in this world to allow a mother to kill her child and then make her live with that it is hard on them and couses alot of phycological problems

if you are a moter who had an abortion or a father or a memeber of a family that lost a child to abortion plese google the silent no more foundation to tell all that you regret your abortion

Like New Ritlina has said... spelling and grammar are your friends.

Now, I think you might benefit from a little brush up in human biology, as well as physical development.

Fetal Development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_development)

There is a common misconception about the unborn foetus. The entity that is being aborted is often pre-zygote cells, zygote or early-stage embryo, long before it takes on many of the characteristics necessary for basic survival. These stages of fetal development are what occur in the first trimester, which is when the highest number of miscarriages occur.

The mother isn't killing her child unless we are talking about infanticide, which is post-natal, not pre.

I guess that's a "no" to my question then.
Pfft, come on, Smunk. Women gotta take one for the team on this. It's not like pregnancy is a big deal or nothin.

I guess that's a "no" to my question then.

Have you ever had an abortion?

I can personally assure you that forced pregnancy would make me extremely miserable. Being denied the right to abort would not only make me miserable, it would also put my life in serious danger, since I would be prepared to go very far to end the pregnancy. If I were not able to end the pregnancy, I would seriously consider ending my life.

Unless it was pregnancy through rape, you chose to be pregnant. So don't say "forced pregnancy". And why would you consider ending your life? Once again, child services means you don't NEED to keep the child, while still allowing it to live. And why would you take such extreme measures to end the pregnancy?

Have you ever had an abortion?

that's not really any of your business is it?

Have you ever had an abortion?
Given that nobody is arguing that we force women to have abortions against their wishes, that's pretty irrelevant. On the other hand, some people (who obviously have never been pregnant and probably are not physically able to become so) are arguing that we force women to remain pregnant against their wishes. Can you understand the difference?

Screw this. Vote Regressive.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/regressive1.gif

that's not really any of your business is it?

well... since you were asking people personal questions... I thought you wouldn't mind sharing.

Unless it was pregnancy through rape, you chose to be pregnant. So don't say "forced pregnancy". And why would you consider ending your life? Once again, child services means you don't NEED to keep the child, while still allowing it to live. And why would you take such extreme measures to end the pregnancy?

It's forced when the condom or other methods of birth control (the pill, anti-sperm gel etc) fail. The person only chooses to be pregnant when there is no form of birth control involved, even if they don't plan it, though this is highly contestable. By using birth control, that's a sign that the people involved clearly don't want it, or are not ready.

Given that nobody is arguing that we force women to have abortions against their wishes, that's pretty irrelevant. On the other hand, some people (who obviously have never been pregnant and probably are not physically able to become so) are arguing that we force women to remain pregnant against their wishes. Can you understand the difference?

So you're saying that we should allow pregnant women to be selfish, and escape physical pain even though it means they have to kill another human being?

Given that nobody is arguing that we force women to have abortions against their wishes, that's pretty irrelevant. On the other hand, some people (who obviously have never been pregnant and probably are not physically able to become so) are arguing that we force women to remain pregnant against their wishes. Can you understand the difference?

Actually that's the exact direction I was heading.

Unless it was pregnancy through rape, you chose to be pregnant.

Bullshit. Choosing to have sex does not equate to choosing to be pregnant. One must accept the risk that one may become pregnant, but that doesn't mean one consents to REMAIN pregnant.

When I get into a car, I accept the risk that I may be in a car wreck and be pinned under the twisted metal of my vehicle. This does not mean I consent to REMAIN pinned under the twisted metal of my vehicle.


So don't say "forced pregnancy".

You advocate forcing women to remain pregnant against their wishes. Don't lie to yourself about that.


And why would you consider ending your life?

Because I believe I would rather die than be forced to bear a child against my wishes. Now, I am fortunate to live in a country and a time when I have never been forced to make that choice, since I am allowed to end a pregnancy if I wish. So I don't know for sure how I would act in that situation. I simply know that I would seriously consider suicide.


Once again, child services means you don't NEED to keep the child, while still allowing it to live. And why would you take such extreme measures to end the pregnancy?
Because that's how much I don't want to be pregnant.

And I'm not alone. All over the world, women stick broken bottles up their vaginas, drink drain cleaners, throw themselves down stairs, even stab or shoot themselves in the stomach, all because that's how much they want to end their pregnancy. This is not rare, sadly.

It's forced when the condom or other methods of birth control (the pill, anti-sperm gel etc) fail. The person only chooses to be pregnant when there is no form of birth control involved, even if they don't plan it, though this is highly contestable. By using birth control, that's a sign that the people involved clearly don't want it, or are not ready.

Well, concerning the fact that birth control doesn't always work, the lovers should know that there IS a risk that the woman can get pregnant, and therefore they should not say "I was forced to be pregnant".

So you're saying that we should allow pregnant women to be selfish, and escape physical pain even though it means they have to kill another human being?

Look, I think abortion is wrong too. You have crappy arguments though. Why don't you go look up pregnancy, figure out what it's all about and then come back.

Although the whole point is, it's not your decision until it is your decision, and when it is your decision you won't have me going around behind you trying to force you to make it the way I think is right. [/incoherent]

So you're saying that we should allow pregnant women to be selfish, and escape physical pain even though it means they have to kill another human being?
I am saying that pregnant women should be afforded the same rights as all other human persons.

If you want to say that it is "selfish" to make your own personal decisions about who gets to use your body, then that's up to you. Of course, it means that you are selfish because there are people dying right now for want of your organs. You could live without your kidney. You could donate part of your liver. You could be giving blood or bone marrow right now. You are selfishly choosing not to do so, and people are dying because of it.

But I believe you have that right. I believe your body is your own, and no other human being is entitled to take your body or any part of it against your wishes.

So you're saying that we should allow pregnant women to be selfish, and escape physical pain even though it means they have to kill another human being?

How is it selfish if the woman already has another child or two, and feels that her financial disposition, as well as that of her partner isn't strong enough to support another child. Not all women who seek abortion aren't "selfish"; they do it for other reasons, including that they already have children to care for and adding another would reduce the amount of attention the other children would get, or she and her partner don't have enough money to support the child to give it the best life they can.

Yes, there are "selfish" women who don't want the child. But consider it this way: they decide to abort the child because they feel that they aren't the type of person who can be a parent and doesn't want to crowd the already over-burdened system that has children being pumped into it every day.

Well, concerning the fact that birth control doesn't always work, the lovers should know that there IS a risk that the woman can get pregnant, and therefore they should not say "I was forced to be pregnant".
Again, there is a risk that the woman may BECOME pregnant. Most human pregnancies do not result in childbirth, so there is absolutely no reason to believe that becoming pregnant must result in giving birth. More often than not, it doesn't.

Bullshit. Choosing to have sex does not equate to choosing to be pregnant. One must accept the risk that one may become pregnant, but that doesn't mean one consents to REMAIN pregnant.

When I get into a car, I accept the risk that I may be in a car wreck and be pinned under the twisted metal of my vehicle. This does not mean I consent to REMAIN pinned under the twisted metal of my vehicle.


You advocate forcing women to remain pregnant against their wishes. Don't lie to yourself about that.


Because I believe I would rather die than be forced to bear a child against my wishes. Now, I am fortunate to live in a country and a time when I have never been forced to make that choice, since I am allowed to end a pregnancy if I wish. So I don't know for sure how I would act in that situation. I simply know that I would seriously consider suicide.


Because that's how much I don't want to be pregnant.

And I'm not alone. All over the world, women stick broken bottles up their vaginas, drink drain cleaners, throw themselves down stairs, even stab or shoot themselves in the stomach, all because that's how much they want to end their pregnancy. This is not rare, sadly.

The difference is is that being pinned between metal risks your life. Being pregnant doesn't.

Yes, I am saying that. But it was the woman's choice to take the risk which she knew could get her pregnant.

Oh come on! I mean, you have to give birth to a child if you're pregnant. So what? You give birth, go through some pain, but you've created life. If you don't want that life, give it to the government and they WILL take care of it. I understand there's a lot of pain involved, but you shouldn't be selfish and not want to go through with it knowing that if you don't someone's life will be ended.

How is it selfish if the woman already has another child or two, and feels that her financial disposition, as well as that of her partner isn't strong enough to support another child. Not all women who seek abortion aren't "selfish"; they do it for other reasons, including that they already have children to care for and adding another would reduce the amount of attention the other children would get, or she and her partner don't have enough money to support the child to give it the best life they can.

Yes, there are "selfish" women who don't want the child. But consider it this way: they decide to abort the child because they feel that they aren't the type of person who can be a parent and doesn't want to crowd the already over-burdened system that has children being pumped into it every day.


I said it before, I'll say it again.

SOCIAL SERVICES.

And Bottle, I'd love to give parts of my body that I don't need, but there's the little problem about my age...

Actually that's the exact direction I was heading.
I want to hear this now, please explain.

The difference is is that being pinned between metal risks your life. Being pregnant doesn't.
yes it does, I almost died with both of my pregnancies, actually I did die for about 2 minutes with my second one, although she was already out, I was just you know bleeding uncontrollably.

The difference is is that being pinned between metal risks your life. Being pregnant doesn't.

Haven't we been over this?

The difference is is that being pinned between metal risks your life.

Not always.


Being pregnant doesn't.

Yes, it does. The risk of death from remaining pregnant is seven times higher than the risk of death from abortion.


Yes, I am saying that. But it was the woman's choice to take the risk which she knew could get her pregnant.

She could GET pregnant. Nothing about remaining pregnant in there.


Oh come on! I mean, you have to give birth to a child if you're pregnant.

No, I really don't.


So what? You give birth, go through some pain, but you've created life.

It's very cute that you feel comfortable offering up other people's bodies and lives so they can "create life" when they don't want to, but it doesn't change the fact that you are advocating something that is only one tiny step removed from rape.

You are advocating that women's bodies be used against their wishes to do something that makes YOU happy. The fact that they don't consent to this doesn't seem to bother you in the least.

If you don't want that life, give it to the government and they WILL take care of it. I understand there's a lot of pain involved, but you shouldn't be selfish and not want to go through with it knowing that if you don't someone's life will be ended.
Why are you still posting here instead of going out and donating your organs? Why are you selfishly choosing to avoid personal pain and discomfort, when somebody else's life will be ended without your organs?

And Bottle, I'd love to give parts of my body that I don't need, but there's the little problem about my age...
So the moment you are of legal majority you will be donating your organs, right?

And Bottle, I'd love to give parts of my body that I don't need, but there's the little problem about my age...

If old life should give way for new. You should be giving the organs you DO need aswell

The difference is is that being pinned between metal risks your life. Being pregnant doesn't.

Yes, I am saying that. But it was the woman's choice to take the risk which she knew could get her pregnant.

Oh come on! I mean, you have to give birth to a child if you're pregnant. So what? You give birth, go through some pain, but you've created life. If you don't want that life, give it to the government and they WILL take care of it. I understand there's a lot of pain involved, but you shouldn't be selfish and not want to go through with it knowing that if you don't someone's life will be ended.

Risks involved with pregnancy:
Miscarriage
Excessive bleeding
Other Risks (http://medicalcenter.osu.edu/patientcare/healthinformation/diseasesandconditions/maternity/care/risks.cfm)
Postpartum Depression (http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/postpartum.htm) - post-natal, but a risk associated with pregnancy
Age is a factor (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/527668.stm) - increase age effects the foetus

If old life should give way for new. You should be giving the organs you DO need aswell
Indeed. New life is more important, after all, so I'm sure NR will be donating his organs to infants and children who need them.

Indeed. New life is more important, after all, so I'm sure NR will be donating his organs to infants and children who need them.

He should also consider potential young women who can be mothers who need vital organs. You know, so they can keep creating life. :p

It's very cute that you feel comfortable offering up other people's bodies and lives so they can "create life" when they don't want to, but it doesn't change the fact that you are advocating something that is only one tiny step removed from rape.

You are advocating that women's bodies be used against their wishes to do something that makes YOU happy. The fact that they don't consent to this doesn't seem to bother you in the least.

Women are nothing but machines for producing children.

I could have sworn that the human race got over this at a few hundred years ago :(

I said it before, I'll say it again.

SOCIAL SERVICES.

And Bottle, I'd love to give parts of my body that I don't need, but there's the little problem about my age...

Explain to me how Social Services will give the child a good life.

The system is overcrowded, and when potential/candidate parents want to adopt, they have to jump through flaming rings, and bureaucratic services.

It takes at least a year to process the paper work.

Further, for a child to have a true head start in life, they need to be breastfed for the first six months of their life at the utmost minimum, and slowly weaned, though, they should be fed for the first year if possible. Breast milk has the best nutrients known to man and help ensure the child gets everything it needs to develop a strong immune system, and grow up healthy.

Formula is no substitute for breast milk, not my a long shot.

Breastfeeding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breastfeeding)

How does Social Services make up for the fact that the infant will not be breastfed?

Militant pro-abortionist btw. As in, it might be a good idea to make abortion compulsory on the 3rd pregnancy.

1) It's not the government’s role to mandate whether or not a person can make a personal choice to do what they choose with their own body.
If I choose to use my own body as a weapon by strapping a bomb to it and blowing up your parliament, can the government mandate that such a thing is illegal? It almost certainly does. Whether that's justified is another debate.

While I think that abortion is wrong, I also think that it is wrong for the government to wage a war on abortion. The best way to stop abortion is via informal social pressure and not by central government making more arbitrary laws.
And how do you propose to enact this social pressure?

In Ireland, abortion is illegal except when a woman's life is at risk. This violates the EU constitution and various other common laws made in Brussels.
Appeal to authority. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority)

2) Abortion prevents unwanted children from being born. Crime in the US fell after 1993 because abortions were legalised in 1973. This meant that fewer children born after 1973 were growing up into potential criminals.
False premise. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise)

In Ireland, where abortion is still effectively illegal, we have the highest rate of violent and property crime in Europe apart from in UK. This is because thousands of children are born into families where they are not properly looked after.
Ditto.

C+. Excellent first try, better than gun smilies at least, but constructing the argument properly might help and prevent it from being torn apart by one's fellow debaters.

While I think that abortion is wrong, I also think that it is wrong for the government to wage a war on abortion. The best way to stop abortion is via informal social pressure and not by central government making more arbitrary laws.

Congratulations--you've missed the whole point.

The pro-life objection to abortion is that it kills a living human being--that is to say, that it is homicide.

Granted this, what is legal abortion? *Government-sanctioned* homicide, on a mass scale--a profound betrayal of the most fundamental responsibility of any government: to protect its people.

That's an evil that must be remedied (or prevented, depending on what country you're in) regardless of how effective it is in reducing the number of abortions.

Granted this, what is legal abortion? *Government-sanctioned* homicide, on a mass scale--a profound betrayal of the most fundamental responsibility of any government: to protect its people.


Well, so is war. I don't see any governments giving that up anytime soon.

Yeah but, I'm just saying, 'cause the whole excuse "It's the woman's body! Let her do what she wants with it!" is getting dry, since we have to remember that there is a LIVING BABY in there. Even if it has the mind power of algae, it still wants to live, just like any other living being. Therefore abortion IS techincally MURDER.
So eating meat is murder too? I'm sure cows want to live too.

So eating meat is murder too? I'm sure cows want to live too.

So is eating eggs. You know that those eggs the chicken lay are potential life too...

Unless it was pregnancy through rape, you chose to be pregnant. So don't say "forced pregnancy".
Wow. I wasn't aware that using birht control was a choice to procreate.

And why would you consider ending your life? Once again, child services means you don't NEED to keep the child, while still allowing it to live. And why would you take such extreme measures to end the pregnancy?
So I'm a university student, I drink on occasion. I'd say in the average week, I consume at least 2 alcholoic beverages. My family also has a history of spina bifida, the risk for which is increased by alcohol consumption during pregnancy and not getting enough of certain vitamins. Now, if I get pregnant and don't notice until I skip my period four weeks later, I've probably consumed eight alcoholic beverages (assuming there wasn't a party that month) and probably haven't been eating properly the entire time. Any kid produced from that pregnancy is going to either have fetal alcohol syndrome or spina bifida. This means that it's not going to get adopted (or it's very unlikely to be adopted) or have a chance at a normal or fullfilling life.
I'm not going to use my resources to produce such a kid, sorry.

So is eating eggs. You know that those eggs the chicken lay are potential life too...
No they aren't. Eggs are unfertilized, if you're going to argue that eating eggs is murder, you have to argue that mensturation and masturbation are also murder.

ok 1 abortion is so completly wrong who has the right to take the life of a child and these are the most defensless people they have no vioces to say mom i love you or ow that hurts as you kill the babe.

The incapacity to make any will known if there is any will to be made known is not really relevent. We are discussing abortion not the killing of a child, and there are of course instances in which a person would be within their rights when taking the life of a child.

murder is defined by many states in the us as the intencional killing of a person or a fetus
In any state where abortion is not illegal, it is not murder. An act cannot be both legal and murder.

how can a mother knowingly kill her own child
Many ways I suppose. It's neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion.

abortion is surly one of the main reasons that there is a moral problem in our country and in this world
It surely is not.

to allow a mother to kill her child and then make her live with that it is hard on them and couses alot of phycological problems
Whether or not that is the case is not relevent for the purpose of this discussion. We are discussing abortion, not the killing of either a child.

if you are a moter who had an abortion or a father or a memeber of a family that lost a child to abortion plese google the silent no more foundation to tell all that you regret your abortion
Even if they regret it and it is the best decision they could have made in the circumstance?

Unless it was pregnancy through rape, you chose to be pregnant.
Er, no. It is entirely possible to become pregnant without choosing to be.

So don't say "forced pregnancy".
Forced is entirely appropriate whether or not becoming pregnant was a choice. Even if a person chose to be pregnant, if they then choose not to be and there are means by which they could become non-pregnant, and they are prevented from availing themself of those means the pregnancy from that point onwards is forced. Much the same way as if I chose to sit on a park bench and then chose to leave but was prevented by others from doing so, it would be reasonable and correct to describe me as being forced to sit on the park bench.

And why would you consider ending your life?
If she would, because she would. It's neither here nor there why. The fact is all evidence available to us in this discussion indicates that she would (ie she explicitly stated as much), while none indicates that she wouldnt.

Once again, child services means you don't NEED to keep the child, while still allowing it to live. And why would you take such extreme measures to end the pregnancy?
It doesnt matter why. And the child services are irrelevent because the concern Bottle describes is with being unwantedly pregnant, not being unwantedly encumbered with a live child existing outside of and independently to one's body.

So you're saying that we should allow pregnant women to be selfish, and escape physical pain even though it means they have to kill another human being?
No she isnt. She is affirming a person's right to bodily determination, specifically the right to choose to undergo an elective medical proceedure.

Well, concerning the fact that birth control doesn't always work, the lovers should know that there IS a risk that the woman can get pregnant, and therefore they should not say "I was forced to be pregnant".
Er no, they cannot accurately say they were forced to become pregnant. However, if they wish to not remain so, there is the means of them ceasing to be so, and they are prevented from availing themselves of that means, they are then being forced to remain pregnant. This would be true even becoming pregnant were an intended and chosen outcome.

The difference is is that being pinned between metal risks your life. Being pregnant doesn't.
That distinction is irrelevent to the point that the analogy illustrated. Clearly there are differences between the two, it wouldnt be an analogy if there were not. The point was that knowing "if I do 'Y' then there is a risk that 'X' will occur" is not identical to choosing the occurance of 'X'.

Yes, I am saying that. But it was the woman's choice to take the risk which she knew could get her pregnant.
So what? People knowingly risk all kinds of occurances happening without being required to refrain from acting in their own interests should the risk manifest into an actual occurance.

Oh come on! I mean, you have to give birth to a child if you're pregnant.
The whole point is that no you dont have to give birth or remain pregnant in the absence of anyone forcing you to do so.

So what? You give birth, go through some pain, but you've created life. If you don't want that life, give it to the government and they WILL take care of it. I understand there's a lot of pain involved, but you shouldn't be selfish and not want to go through with it knowing that if you don't someone's life will be ended.
Whether you should or shoudnt is not the issue. A person shouldnt lie to their teacher about their homework assignment being eaten by the dog. Hhowever, the law doesnt and ought not intervene to prevent such a person from doing what they shouldnt do. It is outrageous to suggest the law be used to force people to never do things they shouldnt do, whether or not selfishness is involved.

No they aren't. Eggs are unfertilized, if you're going to argue that eating eggs is murder, you have to argue that mensturation and masturbation are also murder.

I was only working with that context; I don't actually believe that.

Though... to those who say masturbation is a sin, I respond with, then isn't menstruation, and wouldn't it therefore be in the interest of those who want to be sin-free to use the birth control pill? :p

Militant pro-abortionist btw. As in, it might be a good idea to make abortion compulsory on the 3rd pregnancy.


If I choose to use my own body as a weapon by strapping a bomb to it and blowing up your parliament, can the government mandate that such a thing is illegal? It almost certainly does. Whether that's justified is another debate.
You appear to have missed or misconstrued the meaning of the phrase 'personal decision' in the OP's post.

And how do you propose to enact this social pressure?
The same way we enact others.


Appeal to authority. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority)
Er, no. You either misunderstood the point being relayed by the OP, or you misunderstand your own linked to source. The OP was not relying on the authority, knowledge or position of a person (or entity) in order to assert the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion. The OP was making a statement of fact.

False premise. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise)
You have not demonstrated the falseness of any premise, in fact you have not even signalled that any particular premise is false (you've just stated 'false premise' in response to a paragraph that contains more than premise), much less substantiated as much.


Ditto.
Ditto indeed.

C+. Excellent first try, better than gun smilies at least, but constructing the argument properly might help and prevent it from being torn apart by one's fellow debaters.
Your attempt at rebuttle rates no more highly than that which you attempted to rebut.

heheheh, you said rebuttle, heh.

I was only working with that context; I don't actually believe that.

Though... to those who say masturbation is a sin, I respond with, then isn't menstruation, and wouldn't it therefore be in the interest of those who want to be sin-free to use the birth control pill? :p
Well, I was mostly saying that your comparison was wrong as a cow is a living being while an egg is not. Furthermore, a cow is more sentient than an embryo, so if one is going to argue that abortion is murder, one has to accept that meat is also murder.

And yeah, I agree on that last bit.

The pro-life objection to abortion is that it kills a living human being--that is to say, that it is homicide.

Granted this, what is legal abortion? *Government-sanctioned* homicide, on a mass scale--a profound betrayal of the most fundamental responsibility of any government: to protect its people.

That's an evil that must be remedied (or prevented, depending on what country you're in) regardless of how effective it is in reducing the number of abortions.
But most "pro-life" individuals don't actually consider abortion to be homicide. You can figure this out quite easily...just ask them if they believe women who have abortions should be treated the same as murderers are.

Should women who get abortions be given life in prison? The death penalty? Most people who self-identify as "pro-life" don't even advocate sending women to prison at all. Most "pro-life" legislation doesn't even punish the woman at all, it simply targets the doctor who performs the abortion. But if abortion is murder because it results in the death of a full human person, then isn't getting a doctor to abort your pregnancy the same as hiring a hitman?

And what about women who have miscarriages? Should each miscarriage be investigated the way we would investigate the death of a born child? Should women be charged with negligent homicide if they do something that may have resulted in miscarriage, even if that was not their intent?

Seriously, if you really want us to consider abortion the same as homicide, then you must accept the fact that you are arguing for 1/3 of the female population of the United States to be sentenced to life in prison. One in three American women will have an abortion by the time she is 45. Virtually every single woman who is heterosexually sexually active will experience at least one miscarriage in her lifetime, so every single woman in America would have to be investigated as a potential murderer (since negligent homicide could be involved).

I support random, involuntary abortion.

I support random, involuntary abortion.

Strangely, I find that funny as hell :D

As I stated in a post on a recent incarnatino of this thread, I am still neutral on this issue until I get a couple questions answered.

In the meantime, I will throw in that it's tiresome to hear people portray a pregnant woman as some sort of victim of a horrible circumstance (barring rape, obviously). Having sex = taking a certain calculated risk. If you get pregnant while on birth control you're not a victim of anything but a statistical anomaly.

Keep it in perspective.

The pro-life objection to abortion is that it kills a living human being
Which is objectively false. The fetus doesn't even have brain activity until the 22nd week, far after abortions are illegal. Before then, it is less of a being than an ant or lime Jell-O.

In the meantime, I will throw in that it's tiresome to hear people portray a pregnant woman as some sort of victim of a horrible circumstance (barring rape, obviously). Having sex = taking a certain calculated risk. If you get pregnant while on birth control you're not a victim of anything but a statistical anomaly.

Keep it in perspective.
A woman who has become pregnant through consensual sexual intercourse is not a "victim," you're right. She may be a "victim" of lousy luck, if it happens that she didn't want to get pregnant, but simply becoming pregnant is a risk that most women take when they have heterosexual sexual contact.

However, if a woman is forced to REMAIN pregnant when she does not want to be, that is a serious violation of her rights as a human being. I view it as in the same arena as rape. If another person decides that they get to use a woman's body for a purpose that she does not consent to, then that person is a rapist as far as I am concerned.

I support an unrestricted right to abortion as well.

I don't believe that women (or men) have an absolute right to control over their body, but since I don't think fetuses deserve full moral consideration, I accept that a woman's right to bodily autonomy supercedes the fetus's right to life.

For two reasons. (I am in Ireland by the way)...
There's one thing I want to ask; are you saying that you support the removal of the illegal status of performing an abortive operation, or are you saying that you would have it so that anyone who wanted an abortion would be guaranteed to get it? The former I would accept, though the latter I would have trouble with. The medical profession, as those with the ability to perform the operations, should ultimately have the last say on whether or not they will perform them for a given situation.

It should be every woman's right to abort their child (so long as they can afford it). Anyone for ammending the American constitution?

It should be every woman's right to abort their child (so long as they can afford it). Anyone for ammending the American constitution?
I think I agree with you in spirit, but I gotta nitpick here:

Grammatically, one does not abort a child or a fetus or an embryo. One aborts a pregnancy. This may seem trivial, but it actually is pretty important because it reminds us of what is actually occurring. A pregnancy is being terminated, ended, aborted. The fact that an embryo or fetus may die during this process is often a very sad side effect.

Sometimes an abortion does not result in the death of a fetus or embryo, because the fetus or embryo is already dead. Imagine what it would be like to have the decomposing corpse of your dead child riding around inside your body. Well, the United States government is bound and determined to ban the procedure that would most likely be the safest way to remove that corpse from your body. Anti-choice activists campaign night and day to make sure that you would have to "give birth" to your baby's rotting body, instead of allowing doctors to remove it in a manner that would safeguard your health.

Sometimes a woman who decides she needs an abortion would desperately prefer to be able to keep the fetus/embryo alive, but she is medically unable to continue the pregnancy. The fact that the fetus/embryo must die during the abortion is often something that the woman is very sad about. It's heartless and ignorant to say that these women are choosing to "abort their children," when they are actually making the heartbreaking choice to end a pregnancy that they very much wish they could continue.

Anyhow, I know you probably meant well, this is just something I feel is important. Sometimes little words can count for a lot.

I support random, involuntary abortion.No worries, then; nature has been doing that ever since the advent of the first animals capable of giving birth.

Abortion up until the formation of the brain, and no later than that barring medical emergency.

It should be every woman's right to abort their child (so long as they can afford it). Anyone for ammending the American constitution?
That's ridiculous. You cannot selectively grant legislative rights of the citizen based on financial prosperity. Either it is every woman's right to abort their child or it isn't. And if it is, then you are effectively demanding of the government that the means for this be provided by the medical profession, which doesn't even work in a privatised medical system.

"No woman should be prevented by law from seeking to have a pregnancy aborted" would be a potentially acceptable rule of thumb.

A woman who has become pregnant through consensual sexual intercourse is not a "victim," you're right. She may be a "victim" of lousy luck, if it happens that she didn't want to get pregnant, but simply becoming pregnant is a risk that most women take when they have heterosexual sexual contact.
I'm glad we agree on that. The comment was more directed at those who do portray the woman as a victim.


However, if a woman is forced to REMAIN pregnant when she does not want to be, that is a serious violation of her rights as a human being. I view it as in the same arena as rape. If another person decides that they get to use a woman's body for a purpose that she does not consent to, then that person is a rapist as far as I am concerned.

Still neutral on this, myself.

Yeah, when people decided that a human life is worth about as much as tissue paper, I get more than a little pissed.Why would you say that life has any inherent value? (or anything else, for that matter?) It consists of nothing more than various silly processes. Furthermore, your statement that all living things "want to live" is quite nonsensical. Most living things just live. And procreate. And die. And that's basically it; no different than any other process occuring in nature. Human beings and other animals among the most intelligent do all manners of funky things, but are in the end pretty much the same. While living, they present certain behaviors. When they cease living, they cease doing so. It seems that you, as most human beings do, see and value human beings in an irrational and human-centric way, assigning values to them without reason. (of cource, there are also plenty of values that can be assigned with reason, in accordance to how individuals and groups affect your life)

Why would you say that life has any inherent value? (or anything else, for that matter?) It consists of nothing more than various silly processes. Furthermore, your statement that all living things "want to live" is quite nonsensical. Most living things just live. And procreate. And die. And that's basically it; no different than any other process occuring in nature. Human beings and other animals among the most intelligent do all manners of funky things, but are in the end pretty much the same. While living, they present certain behaviors. When they cease living, they cease doing so. It seems that you, as most human beings do, see and value human beings in an irrational and human-centric way, assigning values to them without reason. (of cource, there are also plenty of values that can be assigned with reason, in accordance to how individuals and groups affect your life)

By that logic murder isn't any worse than running a stop sign, and maybe not even as bad as that.

Oh but wait... running a stop sign is only bad because it might kill somebody so...

When they cease living, they cease doing so. It seems that you, as most human beings do, see and value human beings in an irrational and human-centric way, assigning values to them without reason. (of cource, there are also plenty of values that can be assigned with reason, in accordance to how individuals and groups affect your life)

The benefits of assigning value to life vastly exceed the drawbacks, and have practical as well as psychological benefits. That's why people who don't value human life are rightly regarded as unstable sociopaths; any other position is irrational and goes against both our reason and our instincts. It simply is delusional to believe that life has no value.

Even from a utilitarian perspective, it makes perfect sense because there is no benefit and many significant drawbacks to removing that sense of valuation. And, lastly, any other position than valuing life leads to nihilism, which is inherently contradictory and cognitively meaningless.

The benefits of assigning value to life vastly exceed the drawbacks, and have practical as well as psychological benefits.

Then life merely has value as a means to another end. That's exactly the kind of life-valuation he said was acceptable:

in accordance to how individuals and groups affect your life

That's why people who don't value human life are rightly regarded as unstable sociopaths; any other position is irrational and goes against both our reason and our instincts.

How does it go against reason?

From a utilitarian perspective, it makes perfect sense because there is no benefit and significant drawbacks to removing that sense of valuation.

The benefit is that I can pursue my other values freely.

And, quite simply, any other position leads to nihilism

No, it doesn't. Only stating that nothing has value leads to nihilism.

Granted this, what is legal abortion? *Government-sanctioned* homicide, on a mass scale--a profound betrayal of the most fundamental responsibility of any government: to protect its people.

*cough* death penalty *cough* war *cough*

So is eating eggs. You know that those eggs the chicken lay are potential life too...

If you follow that logic sex becomes wrong, as it results in wasted "potential life".

You see there is this wonderful thing called adoption. And in adoption parent decide to take a child in and raise it and care for it. If they don't want the baby they should do that. Give it to someone who wants it and will care for it. Especially when two teenagers can't controll themselves. (Yes I am aware not all pregancies result of that, you don't have to remind me) I have a good freind, and she was adopted. If she was aborted she wouldn't be here. (She also plays on NS)

I say it's awfully hypocrtical to say you oppose abortion, but would allow it.

Too bad it's not the mother's body: the child has different DNA.

Cancer cells also have different DNA. Is it our responsibility to allow these to grow inside someone's body?

Yes, I realize cancer is different from a fetus. However, neither are an individual, sustaining organism. One might eventually grow into a self-sufficient organism, but at the time of abortion (first trimester, according to most laws), it is simply a chunk of protein inside the woman's body.

Let's also consider what happens when you outlaw abortion. We saw it in the US, certainly, and it happens in any other country where abortion is illegal. Alley and backyard abortion clinics are set up, with your cliche wire hanger, your powerful and dangerous drugs, etc., all offering an alternative to the unwanted pregnancy. Never mind that in most of these cases the mother is at risk of permanent sterilization or death.

How about those disorders we can spot while abortions can be performed? Think it's going to be fun to force a woman to carry a child into the world which carries one of these disorders? Because it's fun allowing children with untreatable disorders which provide hellish burdens on their parents.

Of course, the parents can always give these children up for adoption, but let's face it...these children are rarely adopted. Instead, they remain a burden on the state, which translates into a burden on the people. So, for the want of a simple procedure early in the pregnancy, we're all forced to pay. Kind of unfair to those of us who aren't given a choice over whether the mother had sex or not.

And let's not forget the children of rape. Yep, sure is fair to make those women carry a child of someone who attacked them to term. Nothing like looking at yourself in the mirror 8 months pregnant to relive the entire episode.

There are a lot of very good reasons for allowing abortions. Yes, in a perfect world they wouldn't be necessary. People would be balanced mentally and emotionally, and prepared to take care of any children that came their way.

When you find that perfect world, let me know. We sure ain't living in it now.

After doing some research and study I am returning to my original stand that abortion is wrong, immoral and ought to be illegalized. Exceptions may include cases of rape, incest and where a medically competent professional deems that the mother's life is unduly jeapordized or the baby would not survive beyond birth.

1)An unborn infant is alive. It replaces dead cells. It is human. Killing one is wrong.

2)Ladies, you have the right to choose. Yo do NOT have the right to kill in order to exercise that choice. Can't afford to get pregnant? Don't have sex. Simple.

3)Situations where it's medically or psychologically apropriate consititute 3% of abortions.

4)Legalizing abortion in order to avoid deaths from backalley abortions is illogical. Approximately 1.5M abortions take place in the United States each year. Prior to the legalization of Abortion in the US, there wree NOT 1.5M backalley abortions being performed, let alone that many deaths from unsafe practices.

Moral argument? Yep. get over it. All laws are based upon morality.

You see there is this wonderful thing called adoption. And in adoption parent decide to take a child in and raise it and care for it. If they don't want the baby they should do that. Give it to someone who wants it and will care for it. Especially when two teenagers can't controll themselves. (Yes I am aware not all pregancies result of that, you don't have to remind me) I have a good freind, and she was adopted. If she was aborted she wouldn't be here. (She also plays on NS)

I say it's awfully hypocrtical to say you oppose abortion, but would allow it.

Adoption is, indeed, a wonderful thing. It's a shame there are more children going up for adoption than there are being adopted.

Some fascinating statistics:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm

Just food for thought: In 2005, there were over 60,000 children who had been waiting for adoption for more than 3 years.

Yep, banning abortion will work, we can have even more children waiting to be adopted. Good plan.

You see there is this wonderful thing called adoption. And in adoption parent decide to take a child in and raise it and care for it. If they don't want the baby they should do that. Give it to someone who wants it and will care for it. Especially when two teenagers can't controll themselves. (Yes I am aware not all pregancies result of that, you don't have to remind me) I have a good freind, and she was adopted. If she was aborted she wouldn't be here. (She also plays on NS)

I say it's awfully hypocrtical to say you oppose abortion, but would allow it.

Isn't the system clogged enough already? I doubt that if you throw another thousand kids out there, that they'll all be picked up.

For two reasons. (I am in Ireland by the way)

1) It's not the government’s role to mandate whether or not a person can make a personal choice to do what they choose with their own body... In Ireland, abortion is illegal except when a woman's life is at risk. This violates the EU constitution and various other common laws made in Brussels.
The government ought to protect the weak from the strong. They don't come much weaker than unborn children, so it is the government's job to protect their right to life. If the government has no role in regulating things to do with the body, then why are any foods or medicines regulated? Is it wrong that heroin is illegal?

2) Abortion prevents unwanted children from being born. Crime in the US fell after 1993 because abortions were legalised in 1973....This is because thousands of children are born into families where they are not properly looked after.
This is speculation. I would prefer to prioritise children being better looked after than being terminated before birth.

Or, we could do the moral thing and through charities support their families and begin teaching the responsibilities of families and marriages.
Why bother with charities when we can do the effective thing and support families through government.

Why bother with charities when we can do the effective thing and support families through government.

This is what astounds me.

"Let's just support all these families through the government!"

Where do you think the government gets its money? It doesn't spawn it off of special vines grown in the capitol building. The leader of the country doesn't crap it out. They don't even get it through a bizarre osmosis from space aliens visiting from the Beta Luga galaxy.

They get the money from their citizens. The more a government spews out, the more it needs to take in.

So, all of a sudden, it DOES matter to us if someone has sex, because we're now responsible for their children.

The incredibly intelligent suggestions I've seen here just astound me. I don't have children for a reason. I don't want to be responsible for them. Don't make me responsible for other people's children.

The two conditions on which (the majority of) humans assign the right to live:

1) Alive (duh): Whether or not the fetus is a person according to one of the many theories of person hood is irrelevant as you can always find example of people in society whom the killing of would be considered murder. For example, the fact that the fetus lacks a developed consciousness is no reason to kill it as I'm pretty sure we're not ready to start killing the extremely mentally handicapped or those in comas. However, almost everyone agrees that sometimes there is a good reason for a life to be taken, even if its just to make a good hamburger and so the second pt:

2) Human: This point is based on the fact that many people believe or at least act in a fashion which suggests that they are more entitled to life than other animals. Call it species discrimination, or what ever, most people (and most countries based on their legislation) believe that humans have more of a right to live. Again, the fact that a fetus is not fully developed is not a valid reason to deny it its humanity as their are many example of birth defects (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/birthdefects.html) in which the person is not fully developed, but again, no ones going to let you get away with killing them. Instead, we assign the most auspicious title of Human to anyone who is genetically of the species Homo Sapiens.

So, there you have it, the two conditions which humans evidently hold to be the requirements for a right to life (both of which fetuses happen to have in spades ;) . Place any more restrictions than that, and you end up taking away the right to life from others who have probably become rather attached to it.

Um...you do know where babies grow, right? Inside of women's bodies?

Well, yes, that's where they are, but they are not part of the mother.

Good post all around, but this part gets to me a bit. Charities, ehh, not the best idea. You see, charities are privately owned. It's very hard to trust them with your money. For all we know 10% of the money could be going to helping people. The other 90% could be going to paying the mortgage on a gigantic mansion! Welfare is much more safe, since it's controlled by the government. And yes, the government is much more suprisingly trustworthy than private enterprise.

My experience says otherwise.

Let's also consider what happens when you outlaw abortion. We saw it in the US, certainly, and it happens in any other country where abortion is illegal. Alley and backyard abortion clinics are set up, with your cliche wire hanger, your powerful and dangerous drugs, etc., all offering an alternative to the unwanted pregnancy. Never mind that in most of these cases the mother is at risk of permanent sterilization or death.

Let's legalize rape while we're at it. At least it will be done safely.

How about those disorders we can spot while abortions can be performed? Think it's going to be fun to force a woman to carry a child into the world which carries one of these disorders? Because it's fun allowing children with untreatable disorders which provide hellish burdens on their parents.

Hey, that's what Hitler wanted, too.

There are plenty of persons (including me, though I can't) who would be willing to adopt these children and care for them, however long they might live.

Of course, the parents can always give these children up for adoption, but let's face it...these children are rarely adopted. Instead, they remain a burden on the state, which translates into a burden on the people. So, for the want of a simple procedure early in the pregnancy, we're all forced to pay. Kind of unfair to those of us who aren't given a choice over whether the mother had sex or not.

Well, it's not fair to the child to be killed when it's not even aware yet.

And, I know many families who are willing (and able) to adopt. But guess what... they're aren't enough children in the area. Or so I'm told. I haven't gone through the process, so, I don't know that as fact.

And let's not forget the children of rape. Yep, sure is fair to make those women carry a child of someone who attacked them to term. Nothing like looking at yourself in the mirror 8 months pregnant to relive the entire episode.

Why are we punishing the unborn for the sins of the father?

There are a lot of very good reasons for allowing abortions. Yes, in a perfect world they wouldn't be necessary. People would be balanced mentally and emotionally, and prepared to take care of any children that came their way.

There is only one reason: when the fertilized egg implants in the fallopian tube. Both the mother and the child will certainly die in this case.

When you find that perfect world, let me know. We sure ain't living in it now.

That's a poor excuse. We should strive for perfection, though knowing we will never reach it. What you are advocating is saying "We aren't perfect, so do what you want, and continue to keep it from improvement."

Why bother with charities when we can do the effective thing and support families through government.

Because it's more effective and more human to convince the people to support their fellow Man than to rip their money from them to support the wrong persons.

There are plenty of persons (including me, though I can't) who would be willing to adopt these children and care for them, however long they might live.

And this is, of course, why there are 60,000+ children waiting for adoption for more than 3 years? This is why there are more children placed in adoption than are adopted out? Of course, how silly of me.

Look at the statistics before you make inane statements about how everyone is willing to adopt.

Why are we punishing the unborn for the sins of the father?

Why are we punishing an innocent woman for a violent attack on her?

That's a poor excuse. We should strive for perfection, though knowing we will never reach it. What you are advocating is saying "We aren't perfect, so do what you want, and continue to keep it from improvement."

You certainly aren't striving for perfection. If you were, you'd move heaven and earth to adopt one of these unwanted children. Instead, you use excuses and place the burden on "someone else". The fact is, there aren't enough someone else's willing to take on other people's children.

I, at least, am honest about it. I don't want children of my own, and I don't want other people's children.

That's a poor excuse. We should strive for perfection, though knowing we will never reach it. What you are advocating is saying "We aren't perfect, so do what you want, and continue to keep it from improvement."
Hear here! You can't spell fatalism without fatal.

Because it's more effective and more human to convince the people to support their fellow Man than to rip their money from them to support the wrong persons.
It's more effective to actually help people, rather than just wishing it fervently.

Besides I'm beginning to realise, due to my own observations, that a government which professes to follow an altruistic ideology (be it secular or religious) tend to influence the population as a whole to be more altruistic.

I don't want to support the wrong persons, unless we have radically different ideas of who those people are.

Why? If it's murder (which Scripture and reason say it is) then the government not only has the right but the responsibility to wage war against it.

Let's have it then. Where does Scripture say abortion is wrong? I've tried to find solid scriptural backing for the "abortion is murder" line, but what I found in Scripture suggests that it's worthy of being fined at most.

Let's have it then. Where does Scripture say abortion is wrong? I've tried to find solid scriptural backing for the "abortion is murder" line, but what I found in Scripture suggests that it's worthy of being fined at most.

Because "Thou shalt not kill" is WAY too obvious.

And this is, of course, why there are 60,000+ children waiting for adoption for more than 3 years? This is why there are more children placed in adoption than are adopted out? Of course, how silly of me.

Look at the statistics before you make inane statements about how everyone is willing to adopt.

I have met very few persons who are not willing to adopt. Many are unable, but they are willing.

Why are we punishing an innocent woman for a violent attack on her?

Who's punishing her?

You certainly aren't striving for perfection. If you were, you'd move heaven and earth to adopt one of these unwanted children. Instead, you use excuses and place the burden on "someone else". The fact is, there aren't enough someone else's willing to take on other people's children.

Until I'm married, I can't provide the type of home which God requires us to provide. If I marry, I'm going to adopt as many as I can support.

Because "Thou shalt not kill" is WAY too obvious.

Well, given that it's also WAY too obvious upon even the most cursory reading of the Bible that that rule comes with a great many exceptions, I'd say "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty irrelevant here.

It's more effective to actually help people, rather than just wishing it fervently.

Again, you point to my supposed hypocrisy, which you have no evidence for.

Besides I'm beginning to realise, due to my own observations, that a government which professes to follow an altruistic ideology (be it secular or religious) tend to influence the population as a whole to be more altruistic.

Oh, I see it, too. A lot of groups and protests and cries for social justice, but no one's really doing anything. Except for those who have cared all along.

I don't want to support the wrong persons, unless we have radically different ideas of who those people are.

I meant the persons who take advantage of the system.

Because "Thou shalt not kill" is WAY too obvious.

If we're interpreting the commandment that broadly, we may as well say that the ritual animal sacrifices performed by the Israelites for the cleansing of sin were against God's command. They were killing them, that's for certain.

Let's have it then. Where does Scripture say abortion is wrong? I've tried to find solid scriptural backing for the "abortion is murder" line, but what I found in Scripture suggests that it's worthy of being fined at most.

Exodus 20:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:13&version=47)

That speaks against murder. So what is not murder?

A note in my Bible says:
The law distinguishes between manslaughter and premeditated murder. The verb here is never applied to Israel at war, and capital punishment was already authorized (Genesis 9:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:6;&version=47;); Leviticus 24:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2024:17;&version=47;); Numbers 35:30-34 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2035:30-34;&version=47;)). Human life is sacred because it bears God's image (Genesis 9:5,6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:5-6;&version=47;)).

God commands the use of excecution (as seen above), commands the use of war (Numbers 1:2-4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=1&verse=2&end_verse=4&version=47&context=context); Numbers 10:8-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=10&verse=8&end_verse=10&version=47&context=context); Numbers 31:6-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=4&chapter=31&verse=6&end_verse=8&version=47&context=context)), and allows self-defense (sorry, I can't find the verses I'm looking for).

So, anything else falls under the law against murder, the penalty of which is execution (Genesis 9:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:6&version=31))

What about abortion specifically? Well, if the fact that God has not said "It's okay to kill in this instance" is not enough, then there is Exodus 21:22-25 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021:22-25;&version=47;)

There is no reason to think that the harm is limited to the mother only. The English Standard Version (the translation in which I have provided the verses) translates word for word, not idea for idea.

Also, this is accidental. The woman got in the way and her child was hurt. Why should we think it's any less a crime if we intentionally harm the child?

Also, Genesis 25:21-22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2025:21-22;&version=47;) points to value of the unborn as children.

Psalms 139:13-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms%20139:13-16;&version=47;), Jeremiah 1:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah%201:5;&version=47;), and Luke 1:41-44 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201:41-44;&version=47;) all point to value for the unborn as one would value the born.

What about rape? Ezekiel 18:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=EZEK%2018:20;&version=47;)

After doing some research and study I am returning to my original stand that abortion is wrong, immoral and ought to be illegalized. Exceptions may include cases of rape, incest and where a medically competent professional deems that the mother's life is unduly jeapordized or the baby would not survive beyond birth.

1)An unborn infant is alive. It replaces dead cells. It is human. Killing one is wrong.
Why, because you say so? Or do you mean to say killing it is necessarily wrong because it's human, alive and replaces dead cells? If so then this is inconsistant with your stance regarding exceptions. Further, such a conclusion is not necessitated by the premises, under US for instance if we put aside the issue of abortion it is not true that killing something alive and human that replaces dead cells necessarily constitutes a 'wrongful act' at law, so unless you can substiate why there should be an exception made in this case, your assertion is no more true or right than the assertion "it is alive, it replaces dead cells and it is human but killing it is not necessarily wrong".

2)Ladies, you have the right to choose.
Not if you get your way.

Yo do NOT have the right to kill in order to exercise that choice.
Why because you say so? Again, setting aside the current status of abortion, your assertion is utterly inconsistent with for instance US law. It would require that a special class of people exist who are deprived of a right that is fundamental and common to all other people, in order to create a special class of right that no one else has for a group that we cannot even confirm are people as a matter of fact. It is a huge injustice to deprive one class of people of an otherwise universal right simply to create a special and otherwise unprecedented right for some other class of thing.

Can't afford to get pregnant? Don't have sex. Simple.
Who do you think you are to dictate as much to others?

3)Situations where it's medically or psychologically apropriate consititute 3% of abortions.
So?

4)Legalizing abortion in order to avoid deaths from backalley abortions is illogical. Approximately 1.5M abortions take place in the United States each year. Prior to the legalization of Abortion in the US, there wree NOT 1.5M backalley abortions being performed, let alone that many deaths from unsafe practices.
Er, no. The deaths avoided are of persons as a matter of provable actual and legal fact, the 1.5million deaths you refer to are of something we cannot even confirm in fact as being a person. The lives of actual and legal persons take precedence at law over any rights that might be invested in things that are not provably actual persons, or legal persons. As humans we routinely kill and cause death to large numbers of non-persons not merely to save human life, but simply to enhance it. How many cows die so we can Big Mac and wear leather shoes? Not all lives and deaths are equal. 1.5 million deaths of some thing not proven to be persons in exchange for even one human life, is actually more consistent with our predominate social and moral values.

Moral argument? Yep. get over it. All laws are based upon morality.
You think that justifies the creation of any particular law? Does that mean that vegans who refrain from eating meat on moral grounds have the right to have laws passed forcing you to comply with their values? Maybe people who see regular exercise as a moral duty should get to dictate your minimum levels of exercise to you under threat of legal force? The decision to commit an honour killing is based on morals, doesnt mean the law should recognise and uphold the morals concerned through threat of force.

Irrelevant. Wantedness does not determine value.
Ever taken a class in economics?

Ever taken a class in economics?

We're talking about human life, not goods.

Ever taken a class in economics?

The problem is, economic value is not the same as ethical or emotional value.

The problem is, economic value is not the same as ethical or emotional value.

Or spiritual.

For two reasons. (I am in Ireland by the way)

1) It's not the government’s role to mandate whether or not a person can make a personal choice to do what they choose with their own body. While I think that abortion is wrong, I also think that it is wrong for the government to wage a war on abortion. The best way to stop abortion is via informal social pressure and not by central government making more arbitrary laws. In Ireland, abortion is illegal except when a woman's life is at risk. This violates the EU constitution and various other common laws made in Brussels.

2) Abortion prevents unwanted children from being born. Crime in the US fell after 1993 because abortions were legalised in 1973. This meant that fewer children born after 1973 were growing up into potential criminals. In Ireland, where abortion is still effectively illegal, we have the highest rate of violent and property crime in Europe apart from in UK. This is because thousands of children are born into families where they are not properly looked after.No soup for you, heretic. *Born Again Soup Nazi*

The government ought to protect the weak from the strong.
The government is under no general obligation to do so, neither should it be.

They don't come much weaker than unborn children,
Or than an unborn calf, or an unborn foal, or an unborn puppy, so what?

so it is the government's job to protect their right to life.
No it is not.

If the government has no role in regulating things to do with the body, then why are any foods or medicines regulated? Is it wrong that heroin is illegal?
Foods and medicines are regulated for a variety of reason although the primary intent usually tends to be the protection of social and individual well-being. However, the justification, the legal rational does not stem from any right of the government to interfere with the bodies of it's citizens, but rather from the right of the government to regulate matters of commerce and trade. Heroine ought not be illegal, it's illegality is inconsistent with long-standing and deeply entrenched legal principals and notions of justice and autonomy. Further it contributes to an erosion of the value placed on autonomy and freedom, while having the effect of expanding the rights of the state unreasonably at the expense of the citizenry. None the less, it's not here or there. The illegality of suicide for instance doesnt negate or abrogate the right to choose to undergo elective medical proceedures, because the limited right of the state to interfer with a person's body and medical decisions is and ought to be constrained and exercised with great reluctance only where there the state can demonstrate absolutely that it has standing sufficient to over-ride the very strong and prior right of an individual to bodily autonomy.

This is speculation. I would prefer to prioritise children being better looked after than being terminated before birth.
Good for you, you are more than welcome to put no effort or resource into priortising abortions, and also to put effort and/or resources towards the priortising of better treatment for children. That doesnt give you any right to employ the state as your henchman in order to force others to act in compliance with your preference, anymore than a vegan's preferences give them the right to have the state force you to comply with their notions of a proper and moral diet.

*sigh*

I hate this topic. Pro-lifers depend on that same Rationalist assumption that they know things because they must be so. A fetus is not a person. It does not have the developed cognitive skills to give it a sense of self. The crime of killing someone is in exterminating a person who can understand the horror of mortality. That requires a sense of self, so that there can be a self to fear losing.

I have said it before, so I suppose it won't mean anything to say it again: Arguing with Rationalist pseudo-logic that all who are pro-choice are immoral is convincing noone. It is angring and it will lose you any sympathy.

The way I see it is that if conservatives or populists choose to target women's right to choose, I will have a moral charge to fight against their unjust law, and provide funding for safe, illegal abortions for women who need them without shame. What people do not understand is that abortion will happen whether or not it is legal. The best we can do is make it safe and healthy for the real people, which is to say the women having the abortions. By illegalizing abortion, all we do is put them at greater risk.

And what for? So that chauvanist pigs who don't want women having sex by any code but their own can feel safe in their masculine superiority. :rolleyes:

You support abortion on demand? Whoa that great!

Now all you gotta do is post birth abort yourself, cheat yourself out of your own life before you support cheating others of theirs.

The two conditions on which (the majority of) humans assign the right to live:

1) Alive (duh): Whether or not the fetus is a person according to one of the many theories of person hood is irrelevant as you can always find example of people in society whom the killing of would be considered murder. For example, the fact that the fetus lacks a developed consciousness is no reason to kill it as I'm pretty sure we're not ready to start killing the extremely mentally handicapped or those in comas. However, almost everyone agrees that sometimes there is a good reason for a life to be taken, even if its just to make a good hamburger and so the second pt:

2) Human: This point is based on the fact that many people believe or at least act in a fashion which suggests that they are more entitled to life than other animals. Call it species discrimination, or what ever, most people (and most countries based on their legislation) believe that humans have more of a right to live. Again, the fact that a fetus is not fully developed is not a valid reason to deny it its humanity as their are many example of birth defects (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/birthdefects.html) in which the person is not fully developed, but again, no ones going to let you get away with killing them. Instead, we assign the most auspicious title of Human to anyone who is genetically of the species Homo Sapiens.

So, there you have it, the two conditions which humans evidently hold to be the requirements for a right to life (both of which fetuses happen to have in spades ;) . Place any more restrictions than that, and you end up taking away the right to life from others who have probably become rather attached to it.
The right to life is not absolute in the sense that others are required to perserve your life at the cost to their own rights. The fact that I will die if someone doesnt give me a medicine I cannot afford, does not entitle me to deprive them of their property rights in that medicine yet clearly the law holds the right to bodily autonomy and integrity is superior to mere property rights. The 'right to life' is not a right to abrogate the rights of others.

If I crashed my car into yours entirely as a result of my knowingly taking a risk I could reasonably forsee, and I then intentionally chose to allow you to be hooked up to my body as this was the only means of preserving your life due to injuries I had caused you, I would be completely within my rights to have you disconnected from me at any time even though this would result in your immediate death. In such a case your right to life does not compel me to remain attached to you, my intentional acts being the cause of your predictament do not obligate me to abrogate my right to bodily autonomy, nor does my original consent to being coupled to you abrogate my right to withdraw that consent. Keep in mind that in driving dangerously I would have both broken the law and breached your rights when I consequently crashed into you and that you are provably a person both actually and legally.

A pre-born is not provably and legally a person and it is inconsistent with legal principals and societal values to interpret a right of something that is neither a legal person, nor provably an actual person as exceeding that same right when applied to someone who is both a legal person and provably an actual person. If the pre-born were a legal and actual person their right to life would not extend to the forcable attachment to another person even if their life depended on such an attachment soley as result of the intentional, criminal and right breaching acts of another. Yet getting pregnant is not a breach of pre-borns rights nor illegal.

In essence you wish to do away with a universal and fundamental right of a group of provable and legal persons, in order to grant an exceptional right that supercedes the right of any legal or actual person, to something that is not necessarily either a legal or actual person. This is contrary to longstanding principals of law and justice. There is nothing about a pregnancy that justifies the abrogation of the mother's right to bodily autonomy. Nothing about a pregnancy justifies the creation of an extraordinary right for one class of persons that no other kind of person enjoys, much less for a class of things we cannot prove are persons.

In the case of the crash I have commited a crime and breached your right, yet this does abrogate my rights, why should a mother's rights be abrogated when she has broken no law and breached no one else's rights?

Even if you face death as a result of my withdrawing my consent to have you attached to my body, your right to life doesnt abrogate my right to withdraw consent even though you are only in such a circumstance as a result of my intentional and criminal conduct.
The rights you want to claim for the pre-born do not exist so far as any born person is concerned and the rights you wish to deprive the mother of would not be abrogated in any person whatsoever, for the sake of any born person whosoever, even if their need arose as a direct result of the criminal conduct of the person who's right the law could not and ought abrogate. The deprivation of the mother's right you are suggesting is outrageous and contrary to longstanding principals of law and justice, while the right you wish to extend to the pre-born far exceeds any right vest in any born person. Nothing you have justifies suspending the right of the person whose body is relied on in favour of granting an outrageous, unprecedent and unmatched right to pre-borns that is not vested in any born person.

Why, because you say so? Or do you mean to say killing it is necessarily wrong because it's human, alive and replaces dead cells? If so then this is inconsistant with your stance regarding exceptions. Further, such a conclusion is not necessitated by the premises, under US for instance if we put aside the issue of abortion it is not true that killing something alive and human that replaces dead cells necessarily constitutes a 'wrongful act' at law, so unless you can substiate why there should be an exception made in this case, your assertion is no more true or right than the assertion "it is alive, it replaces dead cells and it is human but killing it is not necessarily wrong".

I started to respond to this, but this sentence runs on so much I'm not sure I understand it.


Not if you get your way.

*BUZZ* wrong answer.


Why because you say so? Again, setting aside the current status of abortion, your assertion is utterly inconsistent with for instance US law. It would require that a special class of people exist who are deprived of a right that is fundamental and common to all other people, in order to create a special class of right that no one else has for a group that we cannot even confirm are people as a matter of fact. It is a huge injustice to deprive one class of people of an otherwise universal right simply to create a special and otherwise unprecedented right for some other class of thing.


This makes no sense and is completely non-sequitur. You're talking about a special class of people deprived of a right "fundamental and common" to all others... By special class of people I assume you mean women, and by all others I assume you mean men?


Who do you think you are to dictate as much to others?

Who's dictating? It's a very simple solution. Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy. Is that concept too difficult?


So?


Sooner or later someone will exaggerate the need for this and use that to rationalize abortion on demand.


Er, no. The deaths avoided are of persons as a matter of provable actual and legal fact, the 1.5million deaths you refer to are of something we cannot even confirm in fact as being a person. The lives of actual and legal persons take precedence at law over any rights that might be invested in things that are not provably actual persons, or legal persons. As humans we routinely kill and cause death to large numbers of non-persons not merely to save human life, but simply to enhance it. How many cows die so we can Big Mac and wear leather shoes? Not all lives and deaths are equal. 1.5 million deaths of some thing not proven to be persons in exchange for even one human life, is actually more consistent with our predominate social and moral values.

So now, in order to try and make a point, you've reduced a human to the status of a cow. No wonder you value it so lightly.


You think that justifies the creation of any particular law? Does that mean that vegans who refrain from eating meat on moral grounds have the right to have laws passed forcing you to comply with their values? Maybe people who see regular exercise as a moral duty should get to dictate your minimum levels of exercise to you under threat of legal force? The decision to commit an honour killing is based on morals, doesnt mean the law should recognise and uphold the morals concerned through threat of force.

People vote for politicians and referenda every election cycle that match as closely as possible to their personal beliefs. If you support homosexual marriage, you vote for the candidate who wants to legalize it. If you support legalization of drugs, you vote on that. Everybody votes their conscience. Only pro-life voters get demonized for doing so.

If we're interpreting the commandment that broadly, we may as well say that the ritual animal sacrifices performed by the Israelites for the cleansing of sin were against God's command. They were killing them, that's for certain.

Which analogy almost makes sense except that God specifies not only the mandate to sacrifice in ancient times, but also specifies what animals may be eaten.

The problem is, economic value is not the same as ethical or emotional value.
That doesn’t make his definition any more accurate.

If you don't want kids growing up in homes where they can't be taken care of, don't kill them! Provide welfare, along with social services such as government sponsored child care. Violence isn't always the answer.

That doesn't work as experience from both the US and countries in Europe have shown. Giving welfare to parents who don't care about their children just makes things worse. It makes the parents lazy and dependent and welfare and created unintended rewards, such that idleness and irresponsible childbirth now pays.

The way I see it is that if conservatives or populists choose to target women's right to choose, I will have a moral charge to fight against their unjust law, and provide funding for safe, illegal abortions for women who need them without shame. What people do not understand is that abortion will happen whether or not it is legal. The best we can do is make it safe and healthy for the real people, which is to say the women having the abortions. By illegalizing abortion, all we do is put them at greater risk.

Here's the bit that really gets me:

Pro-choice policies are better at saving fetuses than "pro-life" policies.

Seriously.

The countries with the lowest rates of abortion, the lowest rates of miscarriage, the lowest rates of infant death, and the lowest maternal mortality rates are countries where abortion is safe and legal. The states in the US with the lowest abortion rates, the lowest rates of infant and maternal mortality, and the lowest rates of unwanted pregnancy, are the states that are predominantly pro-choice.

So my question is, if "pro-life" individuals really care so much about reducing the number of abortions because they want to save the bay-bees, then why don't they adopt the policies and methods that are best able to reduce the number of abortions? Why don't they adopt the policies that actually do the most to protect the health of infants? Why do they, instead, pursue methods that rarely change, and sometimes increase, the number of abortions?

The plain, simple, heartless fact is that banning abortions DOES NOT WORK in reducing the number of abortions. Worldwide, over 20 MILLION illegal abortions occur each year. Women who don't want to be pregnant will find ways to terminate their pregnancies.

The way to prevent abortion is to help women control when and how they become pregnant. Provide education and access to contraceptives. Fight against rape and patriarchal control of women that results in them being forced to become pregnant against their wishes. Help girls learn how to stand up for their own wishes and rights, instead of teaching them to be passive sex objects that exist to gratify males, and they will be better able to say "no" or insist upon contraception. Teach boys and men that contraception is their responsibility, too, and is not simply something to leave to the womenfolk.

These are activities that actually work. Banning abortion does not. It's that simple. If "pro-life" individuals were actually motivated to save fetuses, they would stop trying to ban abortion (which won't work) and focus their attention on methods that will work. But they don't. Because fetuses are just a convenient excuse to take rights away from female human beings who dare to think they own their own bodies.

Here's the bit that really gets me:

Pro-choice policies are better at saving fetuses than "pro-life" policies.

-- SNIP --
Bravo; excellent. This is the best summary of the pro-choice position I have seen. Intelligently written.

Bravo; excellent. This is the best summary of the pro-choice position I have seen. Intelligently written.
Thanks.

I know I get really wordy on these topics, but I just can't believe the hypocrisy and cowardice of the "pro-life" side.

Most pro-choice people, and every single mainstream pro-choice organization, seek to reduce the number of abortions. Abortions are not fun. It would be much nicer to not need an abortion in the first place.

Think of it like how the American Heart Association wants to reduce the number of people who get heart surgery, yet they also support safe, legal heart surgery. The goal is to reduce the number of people who are in the position of needing to contemplate heart surgery.

Banning heart surgery won't stop people from dying of heart diseases. Banning abortion won't stop women from getting abortions, it will just increase the number of women who are seriously injured or killed as a result of getting an unsafe abortion.

Banning abortion is a stupid, ignorant non-option. It won't work. It will kill people.

If you are interested in actually helping to reduce the number of abortions, then I will be more than happy to help you get in contact with organizations that do precisely that. Here are some links that could get you started:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/get-involved/jobs-and-volunteer.asp
http://www.guttmacher.org/about/jobs.html
http://www.reproductiverights.org/ab_employment.html

Banning abortion is a stupid, ignorant non-option. It won't work. It will kill people.



well said. not killing children will kill people.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

I know I get really wordy on these topics, but I just can't believe the hypocrisy and cowardice of the "pro-life" side.

Neither can I.

I find that they tend to wish to remain ignorant, no matter how much proof you provide in the way of links and citations.

Most pro-choice people, and every single mainstream pro-choice organization, seek to reduce the number of abortions. Abortions are not fun. It would be much nicer to not need an abortion in the first place.

And these appears to be the part that the pro-lifers never understand.

They seem to fail in understanding that it's a choice made because the other options aren't viable for the parties in involved. Nor do they understand that the women who seek this aren't doing this to escape responsibility, they have other reasons beyond the black and white perception of reality that pro-lifers envelope themselves in.

Think of it like how the American Heart Association wants to reduce the number of people who get heart surgery, yet they also support safe, legal heart surgery. The goal is to reduce the number of people who are in the position of needing to contemplate heart surgery.

If they took away the option for safe surgery from pro-lifers because they cited religious concerns, there would be an uproar from those denied it.

It seems that pro-lifers don't consider abortion to be a form of surgery, depending on the age of the zygote/embryo/foetus, and that no human being takes surgery lightly.

If people can have access to safe and legal surgery, such as heart or other forms thereof, what makes abortion so different other than the fact that there is a form of developing life in the woman after a certain point following conception.

When a couple is expecting a child, they don't refer to the unborn child as an active member of the family, but rather call it the 'expected baby'. They give it a status of less than human until birth. But, when a woman who has used birth control has it fail and seeks an abortion, suddenly the 'expected' gains human status from pro-lifers...it becomes a child.

Banning heart surgery won't stop people from dying of heart diseases. Banning abortion won't stop women from getting abortions, it will just increase the number of women who are seriously injured or killed as a result of getting an unsafe abortion.

Banning abortion is a stupid, ignorant non-option. It won't work. It will kill people.

Yes, yes it is. It puts limitations on the woman's ability to enjoy life as permitted by the US Constitution.

It should be entirely her choice if she wants to have a baby or not; not that of a grey-haired man from Washington deciding he knows what best for a woman.

Women are able to make the decision about child care; they can make them about their own bodies and know what their situation is, and if it is ideal for bringing another child into the world.

Knowledge is power. If both men and women had the same level of education on the matter, they would be aware of their choices.

If you are interested in actually helping to reduce the number of abortions, then I will be more than happy to help you get in contact with organizations that do precisely that. Here are some links that could get you started:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/get-involved/jobs-and-volunteer.asp
http://www.guttmacher.org/about/jobs.html
http://www.reproductiverights.org/ab_employment.html

I've read information at the Planned Parenthood site, and they have really good information; the kind of information that should be made accessible to everyone so they know what their options are, and the truth surrounding the difficult choice that comes when the woman has to make the choice.

1) It's not the government’s role to mandate whether or not a person can make a personal choice to do what they choose with their own body.

The choice was made when the woman CHOSE to spread her legs. Pregnancy was the result of her choice.

Crime in the US fell after 1993 because abortions were legalised in 1973. This meant that fewer children born after 1973 were growing up into potential criminals.

Well, then. There's the answer.

Abort every single pregnancy. Imagine the drop in crime if there are no people.

You're welcome.



It should be entirely her choice if she wants to have a baby or not; not that of a grey-haired man from Washington deciding he knows what best for a woman.



She can make that choice by not having sex in the first place. she need to accept the concequences of her actions. shecan't just say " whoops! i'm pregnant. oh well. i'll just get an abortion."

I started to respond to this, but this sentence runs on so much I'm not sure I understand it.
Never mind, keep practising, we all have to start somewhere.


*BUZZ* wrong answer.
So says you.

This makes no sense and is completely non-sequitur.
It makes good sense and is perfectly sequitor.

You're talking about a special class of people deprived of a right "fundamental and common" to all others... By special class of people I assume you mean women, and by all others I assume you mean men?
You assume wrongly. The special class is pregnant women, all others refers to every non-pregnant legal and actual person.

Who's dictating? It's a very simple solution. Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy. Is that concept too difficult?
You are dictating. However simple the solution to your concern, however effective, however conceptually easy the solution you suggest, it is a 'solution' that many people do not wish to avail themselves of. If you wish to avoid being involved in an unwanted pregnancy by all means apply your solution in your own conduct, but get down off your high horse and quit trying to impose your preference on others.

Sooner or later someone will exaggerate the need for this and use that to rationalize abortion on demand.
Will they?

So now, in order to try and make a point, you've reduced a human to the status of a cow. No wonder you value it so lightly.
So now in order to avoid engaging a point (probably because you have no means of refuting it) you construct a strawman and commence to beat up on it.

People vote for politicians and referenda every election cycle that match as closely as possible to their personal beliefs. If you support homosexual marriage, you vote for the candidate who wants to legalize it. If you support legalization of drugs, you vote on that. Everybody votes their conscience. Only pro-life voters get demonized for doing so.
So basically you think a tyranny of the majority should be allowed to run riot ravaging the freedoms and autonomy of the minnority. Personally I only value democracy because of its potential to facilitate freedom and to prevent tyranny.

[QUOTE=Zagat;12275063]So basically you think a tyranny of the majority should be allowed to run riot ravaging the freedoms and autonomy of the minnority.QUOTE]

the minority can leave when ever they want.

The choice was made when the woman CHOSE to spread her legs. Pregnancy was the result of her choice.
Ignorance, pure ignorance.

Ignorance, pure ignorance.

how so?

A kidney patient didn't choose to go into renal failure. Does that mean that I am obligated to give him my kidney if I'm a potential donor?

If you voluntarily put yourself on the organ donation list.

Just as the woman voluntarily chose to have sex.

No, I'm acting like the woman has a choice in the whole thing.

Indeed.

Her choice took place prior to spreading her legs.

No human being has the right to choose to harvest my body to prolong their own life, no matter what their reasons or their need.

Uh-huh.

Yeah.

So, fetuses look over potential wombs and pick out the choice bits?

How big is your strawman army?

Why should a fetus have rights that no human being has?

Why should it NOT have rights that every human being has?

Why? Why do you choose the mother's life over the "baby"?

Prior claim.

how so?

Making the choice to sex is no excuse for denying a woman the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy. This is not the dark bloody ages. We have rights and we can use those rights accordingly.

The choice was made when the woman CHOSE to spread her legs. Pregnancy was the result of her choice.
So pregnancy wasnt her choice, just a result of her choice, glad you have that much clear at least. However you missed the point you responded to. If I choose to go skiing and break my leg whether or not I get medical attention is my choice, not the governments, even though breaking my leg was a result of my choice. Your point appears to be 'if you make a choice and it has results you may not make further choices', and that is ridiculous beyond words.

If I were not able to end the pregnancy, I would seriously consider ending my life.

Yeah, right.

However, if you were to do so, you would have your abortion. So, Win-Win.

It's forced when the condom or other methods of birth control (the pill, anti-sperm gel etc) fail.

No, it's not.

It's simply losing the gamble.

By using birth control, that's a sign that the people involved clearly don't want it, or are not ready.

If one does not want the responsibility of a child or is not ready for it, then don't have sex.

In any other case, it is a risk assessment and indicates a willingness to accept the consequences of failing the risk.

Bullshit.

Such civility.

Choosing to have sex does not equate to choosing to be pregnant. One must accept the risk that one may become pregnant, but that doesn't mean one consents to REMAIN pregnant.

Part and parcel.

You don't want to be pregnant? 100% guarantee?

Don't have sex.

I am saying that pregnant women should be afforded the same rights as all other human persons.

They have them.

What right do others have that pregnant women do not?

Yeah, right.

However, if you were to do so, you would have your abortion. So, Win-Win.

How is loosing bottle a "win" again?

"Win win" implies a situation where both sides benifit from a specific action ... in this case the person seeking an abortion is dead as well as the fetus ... how is that a win to the anti-abortionists (the supposed "other" side)

They have them.

What right do others have that pregnant women do not?

Right to undertake any medical procedure on their own bodies that they wish.

Indeed. New life is more important, after all, so I'm sure NR will be donating his organs to infants and children who need them.

Adding to the strawman army with a cast of thousands.

No, NR wojn't be - unless he chooses to - because NR took no positive action to cause the need on the part of the infants and children in question.

The pregnant woman, on the other hand, took positive action that resulted in pregnancy. Whether that was the goal or not is irrelevant. The woman made a choice and took positive action with complete knowedge of the risks involved.

So eating meat is murder too? I'm sure cows want to live too.

Hint: Cows aren't human.

Which is objectively false. The fetus doesn't even have brain activity until the 22nd week, far after abortions are illegal. Before then, it is less of a being than an ant or lime Jell-O.

And, you were granted the authority to decide this, when - ?

I need to travel back and time and try to convince some of your mothers to have abortions. That is those of you that support abortions on demand.

Ignorance, pure ignorance.

My oh my, how ever can I refute this? So indepth, so precise.

As an aside, I only know of one pregnancy that didn't involve the woman spreading her legs.

Are you aware of others?

Making the choice to sex is no excuse for denying a woman the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy. This is not the dark bloody ages. We have rights and we can use those rights accordingly.

Yes.

And, the unborn child has rights, too.

You just don't care about those. You are selective in your assignation of rights.

And, the unborn child has rights, too.

I'm sorry, according to the majority of people in this thread, the child does not have any rights what so ever. Of course, we all know that's a load of bull, but these people aren't exactly caring about that or the child.

So pregnancy wasnt her choice, just a result of her choice, glad you have that much clear at least. However you missed the point you responded to. If I choose to go skiing and break my leg whether or not I get medical attention is my choice, not the governments, even though breaking my leg was a result of my choice. Your point appears to be 'if you make a choice and it has results you may not make further choices', and that is ridiculous beyond words.

So, if you break your leg, you remove it?

Thing is, a leg is not a human being.

So, if you break your leg, you remove it?

Thing is, a leg is not a human being.

That's what I say whenever someone comes up to me with the excuse of "Well if a woman shouldn't be allowed to abort because she took the risk of sex, should I not be able to save myself because I performed a risky activity?"

But of course, these people don't seem to be realizing the idiocy in that statement, since them saving themselves in the latter DOESN'T KILL ANOTHER PERSON!

How is loosing bottle a "win" again?

Bottle has terminated her pregnancy - she wins.
There has been no abortion - pro-lifers win.

Right to undertake any medical procedure on their own bodies that they wish.

That is not a right as it requires the acts of others.

Yeah, right.

However, if you were to do so, you would have your abortion. So, Win-Win.
At least you admit that a "win" for you is the injury or death of a woman.

Part and parcel.

You don't want to be pregnant? 100% guarantee?

Don't have sex.
I don't need a 100% guarantee that I won't become pregnant. I am more than willing to accept a risk of becoming pregnant, just like I accept the risk that I will be in an accident when I drive a car, or the risk that I will be hit by a falling brick when I leave my house in the morning. There are such things as acceptable risk in life.

What I don't need to accept is remaining pregnant, any more than I would accept dying in a pool of blood on the pavement because I was forbidden to seek medical care after being in an accident. Given that the majority of pregnancies don't end in childbirth, I see no reason why I should assume that mine must.

I'm sorry, according to the majority of people in this thread, the child does not have any rights what so ever. Of course, we all know that's a load of bull, but these people aren't exactly caring about that or the child.

This, actually, is the true argument. Not that of a medical procedure.

When are rights assigned?

An abortion prior to the assignation of rights is simply a medical procedure. Only if performed after the assignation of rights has any crime taken place.

As I recall of Feudal Japan, they did not assign rights - humanhood - until 60 days after birth. They considered that to be when the soul was affixed to the body. So, by that thinking, one could terminate the child up until it is two months old.

Bottle has terminated her pregnancy - she wins.
There has been no abortion - pro-lifers win.
Um...you yourself said that I would "get my abortion."

If "pro-life" individuals are actually pro-life, then why would the death of a woman AND a fetus be a "win" for them?

Myseneum has helpfully provided us with an answer: "pro-life" individuals aren't pro-life at all. They are anti-choice. They "win" in this situation because a woman has been denied the right to choose, to the point where she has died. This is a "win" because the woman has been prevented from exercising control over her own reproductive system, and has been appropriately punished with death for wanting to do so.

The fact that a fetus dies in this case is as irrelevant as it always is, since the point is not to protect life but to punish women who have sex.

well said. not killing children will kill people.
:rolleyes: Suggestion to the chumps: read before you post, or you will only help me make you look stupid.

And you don't want to help me, right? I'm an evil baby-killing slut, so why would you want to help me out? Instead, you can make my life more difficult by actually reading and thinking and posting something of substance that requires a real response on my part.

Um...you yourself said that I would "get my abortion."

If "pro-life" individuals are actually pro-life, then why would the death of a woman AND a fetus be a "win" for them?

Myseneum has helpfully provided us with an answer: "pro-life" individuals aren't pro-life at all. They are anti-choice. They "win" in this situation because a woman has been denied the right to choose, to the point where she has died. This is a "win" because the woman has been prevented from exercising control over her own reproductive system, and has been appropriately punished with death for wanting to do so.

The fact that a fetus dies in this case is as irrelevant as it always is, since the point is not to protect life but to punish women who have sex.

So you're saying that because I want the fetus to live, I'm anti-choice? I'm not against abortions because I don't want women to have a choice. Hell, I'm all for equal women rights. What I'm not for is the killing of human life. I am against abortions because I feel that killing a child, even if it is unborn, is wrong. Not because I'm "anti-choice".

What I don't need to accept is remaining pregnant. Given that the majority of pregnancies don't end in childbirth, I see no reason why I should assume that mine must.

The unborn child has rights and you are not allowed to negate them because of your convenience.

You, by accepting the risk involved with having sex, have abrogated some of your rights similar to how you have done so with others by accepting the Social Compact.

The right to life is not absolute in the sense that others are required to perserve your life at the cost to their own rights. The fact that I will die if someone doesnt give me a medicine I cannot afford, does not entitle me to deprive them of their property rights in that medicine yet clearly the law holds the right to bodily autonomy and integrity is superior to mere property rights. The 'right to life' is not a right to abrogate the rights of others.

If I crashed my car into yours entirely as a result of my knowingly taking a risk I could reasonably forsee, and I then intentionally chose to allow you to be hooked up to my body as this was the only means of preserving your life due to injuries I had caused you, I would be completely within my rights to have you disconnected from me at any time even though this would result in your immediate death. In such a case your right to life does not compel me to remain attached to you, my intentional acts being the cause of your predictament do not obligate me to abrogate my right to bodily autonomy, nor does my original consent to being coupled to you abrogate my right to withdraw that consent. Keep in mind that in driving dangerously I would have both broken the law and breached your rights when I consequently crashed into you and that you are provably a person both actually and legally.

A pre-born is not provably and legally a person and it is inconsistent with legal principals and societal values to interpret a right of something that is neither a legal person, nor provably an actual person as exceeding that same right when applied to someone who is both a legal person and provably an actual person. If the pre-born were a legal and actual person their right to life would not extend to the forcable attachment to another person even if their life depended on such an attachment soley as result of the intentional, criminal and right breaching acts of another. Yet getting pregnant is not a breach of pre-borns rights nor illegal.

In essence you wish to do away with a universal and fundamental right of a group of provable and legal persons, in order to grant an exceptional right that supercedes the right of any legal or actual person, to something that is not necessarily either a legal or actual person. This is contrary to longstanding principals of law and justice. There is nothing about a pregnancy that justifies the abrogation of the mother's right to bodily autonomy. Nothing about a pregnancy justifies the creation of an extraordinary right for one class of persons that no other kind of person enjoys, much less for a class of things we cannot prove are persons.

In the case of the crash I have commited a crime and breached your right, yet this does abrogate my rights, why should a mother's rights be abrogated when she has broken no law and breached no one else's rights?

Even if you face death as a result of my withdrawing my consent to have you attached to my body, your right to life doesnt abrogate my right to withdraw consent even though you are only in such a circumstance as a result of my intentional and criminal conduct.
The rights you want to claim for the pre-born do not exist so far as any born person is concerned and the rights you wish to deprive the mother of would not be abrogated in any person whatsoever, for the sake of any born person whosoever, even if their need arose as a direct result of the criminal conduct of the person who's right the law could not and ought abrogate. The deprivation of the mother's right you are suggesting is outrageous and contrary to longstanding principals of law and justice, while the right you wish to extend to the pre-born far exceeds any right vest in any born person. Nothing you have justifies suspending the right of the person whose body is relied on in favour of granting an outrageous, unprecedent and unmatched right to pre-borns that is not vested in any born person.

1)One of my TWO points was that the person hood of the fetus was irrelevant as you can't find a definition of person hood that excludes fetuses without also excluding others who have a definite right to live (unless you make person hood a "no fetuses club", but that doesn't make much sense as you could technically do that for anybody and it wouldn't be much of an argument.

2)Not killing someone is not exactly the same as saving their life or preserving their life. If someone is drowning, of course you are not obligated to jump in and save them thus risking your own life(which is why some countries limit abortions to only when the mothers life is at risk as one person's right to life cannot be held above another's). The problem with abortion when the mother's life is not at risk is that you are actively killing a human. A pregnant woman should have full access to any surgery she wishes to have, including amniocentesis or any other procedures which come close to the fetus, so long as she does not kill or in any way damage the fetus. Pregnancy is a unique situation as while she is pregnant the woman does in fact have another human in side of her. However, we cannot overlook the fact that it is TWO humans, both of which have a right to live, and to do what ever they want to their own bodies, with the obvious exception of if it kills the other person. Much like with Asimov's laws of robotics, the right to life is first, then the right to manipulate your own body exists so long as it does not interfere with the first right. This order exists for the obvious reason that being killed is a much stronger abuse of freedoms than not being allowed to kill.

The fact that a fetus dies in this case is as irrelevant as it always is, since the point is not to protect life but to punish women who have sex.

Yeah, that must be it.

I see the Strawman Army recruiters are out in force...

The choice was made when the woman CHOSE to spread her legs. Pregnancy was the result of her choice.

Yes, pregnancy was the result. NOT CHILDBIRTH. Whether or not she chooses to allow the pregnancy to continue to the point where a child is born is a totally different matter.

It's no different that the idea that a girl may choose to make out with you, but she may stop you if you start trying to have sex with her. She consented to make out, but she reserves the right to STOP your use of her body at any time. The fact that she consented to being a given process does NOT mean that she consents to take it "all the way."

If you believe that a woman's consent to sex = consent to carry to term and give birth, you are fundamentally no different than a guy who claims that a girl consented to kiss him and therefore he had the right to fuck her even though she said "stop." In other words, you're a rapist.


Well, then. There's the answer.

Abort every single pregnancy. Imagine the drop in crime if there are no people.
I love how all your "solutions" involved violating the human rights of 50% of the population.

Are you honestly unable to grasp that women are human beings who just might have the right to decide what is and is not done to their bodies? Or are you so mired in your rapist mentality that you cannot wrap your mind around that concept?

If you believe that a woman's consent to sex = consent to carry to term and give birth, you are fundamentally no different than a guy who claims that a girl consented to kiss him and therefore he had the right to fuck her even though she said "stop." In other words, you're a rapist.
That’s a bit hyperbolic.

If you believe that a woman's consent to sex = consent to carry to term and give birth, you are fundamentally no different than a guy who claims that a girl consented to kiss him and therefore he had the right to fuck her even though she said "stop." In other words, you're a rapist.

Hup two! Hup two! Strawmen march!

I love how all your "solutions" involved violating the human rights of 50% of the population.

Hey, sweetheart, just carried your argument to a logical end.

If aborting some lowers crime, then aborting all gets rid of all crime.

Or are you so mired in your rapist mentality that you cannot wrap your mind around that concept?

Struck a chord, have I? Do you figure that insults will get me to change my opinion?

Adding to the strawman army with a cast of thousands.
I don't think "strawman" means what you think it means. The term you were probably looking for is "reductio ad absurdum."


No, NR wojn't be - unless he chooses to - because NR took no positive action to cause the need on the part of the infants and children in question.

So what? He has stated that new life is more important than old life.


The pregnant woman, on the other hand, took positive action that resulted in pregnancy. Whether that was the goal or not is irrelevant. The woman made a choice and took positive action with complete knowedge of the risks involved.
Again, so what? None of this has to do with what I was addressing.

Before you attempt to jump into a conversation, it's usually best to read back a ways to make sure you know what you are responding to. That will help you avoid this kind of confusion in the future.

Yes.

And, the unborn child has rights, too.

Factually speaking, a fetus has no rights which supersede a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. You may personally believe a fetus SHOULD have such rights, but that's a different story.


You just don't care about those. You are selective in your assignation of rights.
Even if we grant fetuses precisely the same rights as all born humans, we would still be required to allow women to abort their own pregnancies at any time and for any reason. This is because no born human being has any right that would entitle them to live inside another human being's body against that person's wishes.

I don't think "strawman" means what you think it means. The term you were probably looking for is "reductio ad absurdum."

Strawman works jes' fahn...

So what? He has stated that new life is more important than old life.

So what? The rights of one do not negate the rights of others.

Before you attempt to jump into a conversation, it's usually best to read back a ways to make sure you know what you are responding to. That will help you avoid this kind of confusion in the future.

That must be it.

I'm confused.

Yeah...

So, is everyone who doesn't agree with you confused? Just for future reference, don't you know...

So you're saying that because I want the fetus to live, I'm anti-choice?

If you oppose my right to decide how my body participates in reproduction (AT ALL STAGES), then you are anti-choice. Your feelings in regard to the fetus are irrelevant in deciding whether or not you are anti-choice.


I'm not against abortions because I don't want women to have a choice. Hell, I'm all for equal women rights.

Then you support the recognition of women's right to ownership of their own bodies, as men have. If you do not support this right, then you do not believe in equal rights for women.

Many people don't support legal equality. If you don't, that's up to you. Just don't lie to yourself about the stance you are taking.


What I'm not for is the killing of human life. I am against abortions because I feel that killing a child, even if it is unborn, is wrong. Not because I'm "anti-choice".
If you oppose a woman's right to choose how her body participates in reproduction, you are anti-choice. Your motives are irrelevant to whether or not that label applies to you.

I realize that you don't like being called anti-choice. I wish I could bring myself to care. Lots of racists don't like being called racist, either, and most sexists don't appreciate being called sexist. If you are so uncomfortable with the terms that are accurately applied to you, then perhaps you need to re-evaluate the beliefs you are choosing to hold. If you are ashamed of being called what you are, then maybe what you are isn't so hot.

Factually speaking, a fetus has no rights which supersede a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.

"Factually?"

Factually, eh. And, I'm sure you have some substantiation to demonstrate this "fact," right?

Oh! Just an opinion? Well, why didn't you say so?

You may personally believe a fetus SHOULD have such rights, but that's a different story.

Yup. And, in the same chapter as your "fact," above.

Even if we grant fetuses precisely the same rights as all born humans, we would still be required to allow women to abort their own pregnancies at any time and for any reason. This is because no born human being has any right that would entitle them to live inside another human being's body against that person's wishes.

As I said, the woman abrogates some of her rights when she makes the choice to have sex and encumbers the burden of the results of that choice. Just as some rights are abrogated by acceptance of the Social Compact.

Strawman works jes' fahn...

Only if you want to make yourself look foolish by misusing a term. Which, now that you mention it, is just fine with me. So never mind.


So what? The rights of one do not negate the rights of others.

Nobody has the "right" to live inside your body. Nobody has the right to take your blood, your tissues, your organs, or your body parts against your wishes. Even if they need them to live. Even if you are the specific reason why they need them to live.

So you're right, there is no conflict. No human being, unborn or born, has the right to my body against my wishes. My right to choose does not conflict with any rights a fetus may have, unless we grant a fetus rights that no human person possesses.


That must be it.

I'm confused.

Yeah...

So, is everyone who doesn't agree with you confused?

At the moment, no, it's just you.

Hup two! Hup two! Strawmen march!

Honestly, you really seem to think that "strawman" is a catch-all term for arguments you don't like. Or possibly for all logical falacies.

At the very most, what you quoted from me would be called "hyperbole," as another person pointed out.

I'm not trying to be rude, here, I'm trying to help you out. Seriously. No sarcasm. If you keep using "strawman" in the way you are doing, you're going to weaken your own efforts by making yourself appear ignorant.


Hey, sweetheart, just carried your argument to a logical end.

No, you really didn't. First of all, it wasn't my argument. Second of all, I am arguing for the right of all persons to control their own bodies and their individual participation in reproduction. Force abortion is completely incompatible with this.


Struck a chord, have I? Do you figure that insults will get me to change my opinion?
I don't consider it an "insult" to call people what they are. If you believe that you are entitled to use people's bodies against their wishes, then I personally see no fundamental difference between you and a rapist. Or a slave owner, if you prefer. That's just my personal opinion, of course, though it really seems to bother you. Don't worry, I'm just a random yahoo on the internet, so you don't have to let it get under your skin. :D

The unborn child has rights and you are not allowed to negate them because of your convenience.

You, by accepting the risk involved with having sex, have abrogated some of your rights similar to how you have done so with others by accepting the Social Compact.
In my country, having sex does not remove legal rights from a person. I do not give up my right to ownership of my own person simply because I choose to have sex. If you believe this is the case, then I strongly encourage you to read up on the legal system in your area. You may be dangerously misinformed, and it could result in serious legal repercussions for you.

For two reasons. (I am in Ireland by the way)

1) It's not the government’s role to mandate whether or not a person can make a personal choice to do what they choose with their own body. While I think that abortion is wrong, I also think that it is wrong for the government to wage a war on abortion. The best way to stop abortion is via informal social pressure and not by central government making more arbitrary laws. In Ireland, abortion is illegal except when a woman's life is at risk. This violates the EU constitution and various other common laws made in Brussels.

2) Abortion prevents unwanted children from being born. Crime in the US fell after 1993 because abortions were legalised in 1973. This meant that fewer children born after 1973 were growing up into potential criminals. In Ireland, where abortion is still effectively illegal, we have the highest rate of violent and property crime in Europe apart from in UK. This is because thousands of children are born into families where they are not properly looked after.

Number 1 is really a moral/ethical opinion... if you are against abortion (Because you belive it is murder) then the government should (in your eyes) have every right to hault this behavior, because it propogates murder. If not, then the government has no right in individual afairs.

Number 2 seems to give no factual evidence linking the legalization of abortions and the decline in crime after 1993 (other then pure conjecture that is). Statistics also show most abortions are carried out by middle class to upper class white women, not poor minorities (were most criminality is prevelant)

No, you really didn't. First of all, it wasn't my argument.

Oops! Right you are.

'Pologies for that.

That's just my personal opinion, of course, though it really seems to bother you.

Opinions don't bother me, just how I can use them.

Don't worry, I'm just a random yahoo on the internet, so you don't have to let it get under your skin.

There's no room...

In my country, having sex does not remove legal rights from a person. I do not give up my right to ownership of my own person simply because I choose to have sex. If you believe this is the case, then I strongly encourage you to read up on the legal system in your area. You may be dangerously misinformed, and it could result in serious legal repercussions for you.

Just food for thought... in the US, if you were to kill a pregnant mother, you would in many states be charged with 2 murders. The murder of the mother, and her unborn child.

Nobody has the "right" to live inside your body.

True, not without your invitation.

By having sex, you extend the invitation and you give up some of your rights in the process.

As I said, the argument is not actually about abortion, but about the assignation of rights.

I assign them earlier than you, so what I see as wrong, you see as acceptable.

"Factually?"

Factually, eh. And, I'm sure you have some substantiation to demonstrate this "fact," right?
Yes. The laws of my nation and my state can be read by anybody just as easily as they can be read by me.

I live in the United States. It should be no trouble for you to read up on the laws in this country. Whether or not you personally agree with them, our laws state that no person has the right to take another person's body or organs or whatever against their wishes. The only murky areas are where one person is the legal guardian or custodian of another person, such as the case of legal minors whose parents can make medical decisions for them.


Oh! Just an opinion? Well, why didn't you say so?

I did. In several places.


Yup. And, in the same chapter as your "fact," above.

Your opinions do not dictate fact, unfortunately. You may feel a law is unjust, but that alone will not stop the law from existing. It is a fact that fetuses do not have the legal rights that you appear to wish they had.

You may choose to recognize rights beyond the legal rights of a fetus. That's up to you. But that does not mean that anybody else is obligated to do so.

As I said, the woman abrogates some of her rights when she makes the choice to have sex and encumbers the burden of the results of that choice. Just as some rights are abrogated by acceptance of the Social Compact.
You may believe that women give up rights when they have sex. Happily, the laws of my country do not conform to your opinion.

For two reasons. (I am in Ireland by the way)

1) It's not the government’s role to mandate whether or not a person can make a personal choice to do what they choose with their own body. While I think that abortion is wrong, I also think that it is wrong for the government to wage a war on abortion. The best way to stop abortion is via informal social pressure and not by central government making more arbitrary laws. In Ireland, abortion is illegal except when a woman's life is at risk. This violates the EU constitution and various other common laws made in Brussels.

2) Abortion prevents unwanted children from being born. Crime in the US fell after 1993 because abortions were legalised in 1973. This meant that fewer children born after 1973 were growing up into potential criminals. In Ireland, where abortion is still effectively illegal, we have the highest rate of violent and property crime in Europe apart from in UK. This is because thousands of children are born into families where they are not properly looked after.

I completely agree
I think it is up to the ppl itself if they wont abortion.
If someone doesnt wont his child what do you think that is goin to happen!
Eather the mom or dad leaves it somewhere in a dumpster, witch is already happening in most countreys or they will mistreat or abuse the child. Result is like Populistonia says voilence,crime,...

True, not without your invitation.

By having sex, you extend the invitation and you give up some of your rights in the process.

Ah, so if I invite somebody into my home, I am never allowed to ask them to leave? I mean, I extended the invitation, so now they get to stay there indefinitely right?


As I said, the argument is not actually about abortion, but about the assignation of rights.

I assign them earlier than you, so what I see as wrong, you see as acceptable.
No, it's not about the timing. It is about the rights you assign to fetuses as opposed to the rights you assign to post-birth humans. I am willing to agree, for the sake of argument, that fetuses should be granted the same legal rights as born humans. In that event, I still conclude that a woman retains the right to abortion, since there is no right a born human possesses which would preclude a woman's right to end her pregnancy.

Just food for thought... in the US, if you were to kill a pregnant mother, you would in many states be charged with 2 murders. The murder of the mother, and her unborn child.
Yes. These laws are the result of what are sometimes called "back-door" efforts by the anti-choice lobby. It is their way of trying to get around abortion laws, by getting fetuses and embryos legally recognized as persons in whatever way they can.

I oppose such laws, but I also believe that they still have nothing to do with the abortion debate. Even if a fetus is recognized as a full human person under the law, I still see no reason why this would prevent women from ending their participation in pregnancy at any time and for any reason.

Oops! Right you are.

'Pologies for that.

Appreciated. :D It is rare for a person to be willing to apologize for a mistake around here!


Opinions don't bother me, just how I can use them.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. You are not bothered by opinions, but you are bothered by how you can use them?

Sorry, I may just be a bit slow this morning. Not enough sugar in my coffee or something.

Whoops, duty calls at work. It may be a while before I respond to more posts, sorry!

Ah, so if I invite somebody into my home, I am never allowed to ask them to leave? I mean, I extended the invitation, so now they get to stay there indefinitely right?

Ah, nope. No cigar.

Inviting someone into your home does not create life.

I am willing to agree, for the sake of argument, that fetuses should be granted the same legal rights as born humans. In that event, I still conclude that a woman retains the right to abortion, since there is no right a born human possesses which would preclude a woman's right to end her pregnancy.

Just the right to life.

One's rights end when they conflict with another's. Your right to do what you wish with your body conflicts with the right of the fetus to life, in the case of abortion. Conversely, the right of the fetus to live conflicts with your right to do what you wish with your body.

However, you chose to take action that could result in the presence of the fetus. The fetus took no positive act to be in your body. You have given up some of your rights by that choice of yours.

Just as you give up some of your property rights by virtue of the Social Compact - things like zoning laws - you give up some of your rights by becoming pregnant.

I oppose such laws, but I also believe that they still have nothing to do with the abortion debate. Even if a fetus is recognized as a full human person under the law, I still see no reason why this would prevent women from ending their participation in pregnancy at any time and for any reason.


Well if a fetus were to be recognized as a full human, then some right to life would exist.. as currently doctors are prohibited from conducting late term abortions. Just as a a person on life support with some reasonable chance at life could not be terminated, so the argument would be a fetus could not either.

No, it's not.

It's simply losing the gamble.

If one does not want the responsibility of a child or is not ready for it, then don't have sex.

In any other case, it is a risk assessment and indicates a willingness to accept the consequences of failing the risk.

Sexual intercourse has been proven to be physically beneficial to the two parties involved, specifically when there is orgasm in involved. It has been shown that if a woman has a headache, consenting to sex with her partner is better for her as the orgasm helps to relieve the headache.

Migraine — Two 2001 case studies of orgasm and migraine headache in a woman and a man found that orgasm resulted in at least some relief of pain. An earlier study of 83 women who suffered migraine showed that orgasm resulted in at least some relief for more than half of them. Although relief of migraine through orgasm is less reliable and less effective than relief through drug therapies, the effects of orgasm as an analgesic are more rapid (Evans & Couch, 2001).

The Health Benefits of Sexual Expression (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/medical-sexual-health/The-Health-Benefits-of-Sexual-Expression.htm)

Mind you, there is the standard risk of pregnancy involved, and its greater when there is no form of birth control used. However, when the pill (and its patch equivalent) is used, the chance is greatly reduced to almost nothing. Used in conjunction with the condom, the chances are even lower.

The benefits are excellent for both partners involved.

Sleep — Sexual release can help people go to sleep. Orgasm causes a surge in oxytocin and endorphins that may act as sedation (Odent, 1999). One study found that 32 percent of 1,866 U.S. women who reported masturbating in the previous three months did so to help go to sleep (Ellison, 2000).

Fitness — Sexual activity does burn calories and fat, and it has been suggested that people with active sex lives tend to exercise more frequently and have better dietary habits than those who are less sexually active (Ellison, 2000).

Yes, I am aware that I'm using the Planned Parenthood as a source, but, this is the same information I have received from my gyn.

There are no doubts about the benefits for the men involved as well.

Prostate — The prostate gland is responsible for producing some of the secretions in semen. It has been shown that frequent ejaculation may help prevent chronic non-bacterial prostatitis

Those are just a couple of examples from the link I provided above.

The link cites a study done that has proven this.

Pregnancy may be a result if protection fails, but as Bottle has pointed out many times, it is no reason why women MUST carry the child to term.

In fact, many pregnancies never make it past the first trimester and not because of human intervention, but because of nature. In many cases, the miscarriage occurs before the woman is even aware that she is pregnant.

A fertilised egg does not equate to a human; it's undeveloped cells that will take on characteristics of cells that make up the human.

Such civility.

Part and parcel.

You don't want to be pregnant? 100% guarantee?

Don't have sex.

See above for my little lesson on sex.

And, you were granted the authority to decide this, when - ?

If one has studied the physical development and evolution of the child from the point of conception, at which time the egg is a single cell, as is the sperm that is fertilising it, through the early stages in which the egg is a zygote, through to the embryonic stage, to foetal and finally to the birth which results in an infant, and thus a human, you'd realise that for a significant part of the infant's pre-natal existence, it lacked many of the core physical characteristics of a human being.

Fetal Development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_development)
Visible Embryo Home Page (http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html)

My oh my, how ever can I refute this? So indepth, so precise.

As an aside, I only know of one pregnancy that didn't involve the woman spreading her legs.

Are you aware of others?

Even that is refutable, unless she had the inherent physical characteristics that would have allowed for it to happen.

In this case, I refer to what is known as a Hermaphrodite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite).

...a hermaphrodite is an organism that possesses both male and female sex organs during its life.

Thus, with this description, we realise that the only person you know who had such a pregnancy with no male figure involved was likely a Hermaphrodite.

Just because you can only think of one doesn't mean there is just one.

Yes.

And, the unborn child has rights, too.

You just don't care about those. You are selective in your assignation of rights.

If the woman carries the unborn being to term, she has granted it the right to use her body as a temporary incubator until it has developed to the point wherein it is viable and able to sustain itself in the very bare minimum - ie BREATH!

In the eyes of nature, the zygote has no real rights because it can be expelled from the woman's body if nature decides it doesn't want for it to become more than just unassigned cells.


Whoops, duty calls at work. It may be a while before I respond to more posts, sorry!

Don't worry Bottle, I'll stand in for you as long as I can. :D

How is loosing bottle a "win" again?

"Win win" implies a situation where both sides benifit from a specific action ... in this case the person seeking an abortion is dead as well as the fetus ... how is that a win to the anti-abortionists (the supposed "other" side)

the "pro abortionist" dies with the kid. win-win

the "pro abortionist" dies with the kid. win-win

It's not a kid if the cells haven't developed into distinguishable cells that have the characteristics of a human being. It takes at least six months to get to this point. This is why you have doctors who say that they will, preferably, only deliver babies who have past 34 weeks of gestation.

It's not a kid if the cells haven't developed into distinguishable cells that have the characteristics of a human being. It takes at least six months to get to this point. This is why you have doctors who say that they will, preferably, only deliver babies who have past 34 weeks of gestation.

those cells without human characteristics eventually will be human.

those cells without human characteristics eventually will be human.
Eventually, provided that there isn't a miscarriage. However, the cells can never be human, but they can develop and help form the characteristics of a human. The cells initially are what are known as 'embryonic' cells; they have no defined function, and over time develop into the cells needed to make the human.

Eventually, provided that there isn't a miscarriage. However, the cells can never be human, but they can develop and help form the characteristics of a human. The cells initially are what are known as 'embryonic' cells; they have no defined function, and over time develop into the cells needed to make the human.

killing what will eventually be human is the same as killing any other human.

killing what will eventually be human is the same as killing any other human.

Note that the word you use is 'eventually', therefore meaning that it isn't human at the start and you're essentially ending the existence of something that is not human. Sure, it has the potential to be, but if you prevent it from becoming as such, then you've failed to actually end the life of a human. Rather, you have prevented cells, at a certain point of development from developing into a force that we have denoted as 'human'.

Note that the word you use is 'eventually', therefore meaning that it isn't human at the start and you're essentially ending the existence of something that is not human. Sure, it has the potential to be, but if you prevent it from becoming as such, then you've failed to actually end the life of a human. Rather, you have prevented cells, at a certain point of development from developing into a force that we have denoted as 'human'.

an oak seed will eventually be an oak tree if it isn't desroyed. if all the seeds are gone, no oaks will be around. it would be the same as destoying the tree that made the seed.

killing what will eventually be human is the same as killing any other human.

So using spermicide and condoms is murder now, is it?

And don't get me started on birth control pills, that's obviously mass homicide.

And then there's diaphrams, tubal ligations, hysterectomies. I mean, a man who regularly masturbates is a serial killer.

All these are cells which can eventually be human, so killing them is murder, right?

an oak seed will eventually be an oak tree if it isn't desroyed. if all the seeds are gone, no oaks will be around. it would be the same as destoying the tree that made the seed.

That's why we have the pro-choice option.

If the potential mother (tree or human) dies then there are no more seeds left.

Sacrifices are an inevitable part of life, and sometimes that sacrifice is abortion. The woman needs to abort the child so she can become the type of woman that can be a true mother. Or, she aborts because she wants to ensure that her current children get the nurturing they need. If she spreads her attention too much, all the children suffer.

We have reached a point in our existence as humans that we are not entirely reliant on old methods of procreation, as we have fertility treatment and the option to control our populations.

Even if one woman aborts, there will be far more who either miscarry or carry to term.

There are diseases that kill the oak tree, just as there are those which kill the potential mother. We need to protect both.

Abortion is one way of helping to protect the mother and her children. If the woman has children already, she is taking a risk with being pregnant again. Her children stand to lose their mother.

And don't get me started on birth control pills, that's obviously mass homicide.
Actually, birth control pills are inhibitors and don't actually kill the egg. They stop the ovaries from releasing the egg, though it doesn't stop menstruation.

It's not a kid if the cells haven't developed into distinguishable cells that have the characteristics of a human being. It takes at least six months to get to this point. This is why you have doctors who say that they will, preferably, only deliver babies who have past 34 weeks of gestation.

Why not just draw the line at the formation of the brain? That's about as unequivocally human as it gets.

Actually, birth control pills are inhibitors and don't actually kill the egg. They stop the ovaries from releasing the egg, though it doesn't stop menstruation.

Actually, it is killing the egg. Eggs mature at a certain stage, and should be released. If they aren't released, they die in the ovaries and are reabsorbed as protein.

So using spermicide and condoms is murder now, is it?

And don't get me started on birth control pills, that's obviously mass homicide.

And then there's diaphrams, tubal ligations, hysterectomies. I mean, a man who regularly masturbates is a serial killer.

All these are cells which can eventually be human, so killing them is murder, right?

they won't become human unless the sperm comes in contact with, and fretilizes, an egg cell. once they do, then the child is developing.

Why not just draw the line at the formation of the brain? That's about as unequivocally human as it gets.

This is what most sensible people have decided to do. Formation of the brain and brain activity occur after the first trimester, and after it's legal in most situations to perform an abortion.

they won't become human unless the sperm comes in contact with, and fretilizes, an egg cell. once they do, then the child is developing.

The fertilized egg won't become human unless it develops into a human. I fail to see the difference.

The argument has been that an abortion is murder because it kills a mass of cells which "might become human". Eggs and sperm are cells which "might" become human. Same difference.

This is what most sensible people have decided to do. Formation of the brain and brain activity occur after the first trimester, and after it's legal in most situations to perform an abortion.

Yeah, I mean, that makes perfect sense. It's at a specific stage in the pregnancy, it's an unequivocal and specific definition of a human being, and gives the mother enough time to make that decision prior to the cutoff point.

The fertilized egg won't become human unless it develops into a human. I fail to see the difference.

The argument has been that an abortion is murder because it kills a mass of cells which "might become human". Eggs and sperm are cells which "might" become human. Same difference.

a sperm cell wont become human if left alone. the fertilized egg, however, will.

a sperm cell wont become human if left alone. the fertilized egg, however, will.

No if left alone it dies ... if supported by the mother (if it manages to implant) ... that is another case

Having every need cared for hardly qualifies as "left alone"

No if left alone it dies ... if supported by the mother (if it manages to implant) ... that is another case

Having every need cared for hardly qualifies as "left alone"

minor technicalities.

No if left alone it dies ... if supported by the mother (if it manages to implant) ... that is another case

Having every need cared for hardly qualifies as "left alone"
There is an implicit assumption among certain classes in the west that other people are (generally "constitutionally", given the argument tactics) obliged to provide them with services. "Left Alone" is taken to mean "Maintaining the Status Quo", not "Isolating".

a sperm cell wont become human if left alone. the fertilized egg, however, will.

You're making faulty assumptions. Many pregnancies terminate naturally in the first trimester. There is no absolute that a fertilized egg will become human.

So tell me, how do you define human? As a mass of human protein which might become a child? Then you need to include sperm cells and eggs in there. As a mass of protein which will definitely become a child? Then it's not human until it's born. As a mass of protein which shows brain activity (which is where most respected scientists classify it as human)? Then it's not human until after the first trimester.

As a fertilized egg? Then women who accidently cause a termination of their pregnancy (drinking too much before they realize they're pregnant, etc.) are guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

Where do you draw the line? Even the bible is fairly specific about it, either with the birth or with the first movements of the child in the womb. Everything else is philosophical quibbling.

Which analogy almost makes sense except that God specifies not only the mandate to sacrifice in ancient times, but also specifies what animals may be eaten.

Yeah, it's almost like God is contradicting himself if you read "thou shalt not kill" that broadly, ain't it?

Also, you mention God specifying things. God got pretty specific on a lot of things even where they could fall under a broader rule. So why isn't there a specific prohibition against abortion? Especially in a culture where life expectancy was low and getting oneself with child was a great blessing from God, wouldn't it make sense to get pretty specific about making sure no one aborted a pregnancy?

Actually, it is killing the egg. Eggs mature at a certain stage, and should be released. If they aren't released, they die in the ovaries and are reabsorbed as protein.


umm..where do you get that information from? BCP's prevent an egg from being released by the ovaries while you are taking them. Once your 21 days are up of taking them..the ovaries release an egg and it is expelled normally through menstruation. Which would be WHY you should not have sex during your "off week"

There is not a specific egg that is chosen to be released at that time. It is completely random. An older egg could be released or a newer egg. Lottery.

umm..where do you get that information from? BCP's prevent an egg from being released by the ovaries while you are taking them. Once your 21 days are up of taking them..the ovaries release an egg and it is expelled normally through menstruation. Which would be WHY you should not have sex during your "off week"

There is not a specific egg that is chosen to be released at that time. It is completely random. An older egg could be released or a newer egg. Lottery.

There is no such thing as an "older" egg or a "newer" egg. Eggs mature and they release. If an egg is not released, it is absorbed. Or it becomes a tumor (nasty one, too).

A woman is born with all the egg sacs she will ever have. No new ones are ever developed. Each egg sac matures seperately, according to hormones released (or not released).

Suppression of the cycle means that maturing eggs aren't used. Even in the week when the placebo pills are taken, many women do not ovulate. The placebo pills are simply taken to allow the body to flush residue from the uterus (i.e. allow the normal menstrual cycle).

However, whether you argue ovulation occurs or not, birth control still prevents the egg from becoming human, with the end result that the egg "dies". So, by the standards of the people claiming any destruction of material which "might" become human, birth control is still murder.

For two reasons. (I am in Ireland by the way)

1) It's not the government’s role to mandate whether or not a person can make a personal choice to do what they choose with their own body. While I think that abortion is wrong, I also think that it is wrong for the government to wage a war on abortion. The best way to stop abortion is via informal social pressure and not by central government making more arbitrary laws. In Ireland, abortion is illegal except when a woman's life is at risk. This violates the EU constitution and various other common laws made in Brussels.

2) Abortion prevents unwanted children from being born. Crime in the US fell after 1993 because abortions were legalised in 1973. This meant that fewer children born after 1973 were growing up into potential criminals. In Ireland, where abortion is still effectively illegal, we have the highest rate of violent and property crime in Europe apart from in UK. This is because thousands of children are born into families where they are not properly looked after.

You want to prevent unwanted children? Wait til marriage to have sex, don't use abortion as birth control.

You want to prevent unwanted children? Wait til marriage to have sex, don't use abortion as birth control.

Because this has worked so well.

Completely leaving aside the viability of your suggestion in the face of raging teen-age hormones, social norms of promiscuity, etc., how about the families who have too many children? How about the fact that the Catholic Church has been trying this one for centuries...with marked lack of success?

We've been there and done that. Doesn't work. Next suggestion, please.

Wait til marriage to have sex,

Yeah, because women shouldn't do anything fun. They belong barefoot and in the kitchen.

However, whether you argue ovulation occurs or not, birth control still prevents the egg from becoming human, with the end result that the egg "dies". So, by the standards of the people claiming any destruction of material which "might" become human, birth control is still murder.
In a world where cloning is possible, that train of thought would prohibit you from scratching yourself, washing your hair or cutting your fingernails.

"Potential" is not a sufficient standard.

In a world where cloning is possible, that train of thought would prohibit you from scratching yourself, washing your hair or cutting your fingernails.

"Potential" is not a sufficient standard.

Which is exactly my point. There needs to be a limit drawn as to when something becomes "human" and not just "potential human".

No matter what standard you look at, a zygote is not human. The old testament calls a child human when it's a month old. Other references in the bible call it human when a woman can feel it moving in her uterus. Current standards among respected scientists call it human when brain activity begins to occur.

You want to prevent unwanted children? Wait til marriage to have sex,

I want to prevent unwanted children. I will not wait until marriage to have sex.

Ball's in your court, champ.


don't use abortion as birth control.
Abortion IS birth control, no matter who is using it.

Birth. Control. Controlling birth. Every abortion is birth control. Women who have abortions because they will die otherwise are still engaging in birth control.

I muchly appreciate those who stepped in to carry on the discussion while I was away...it always bums me out when a discussion fizzles because nobody was around to carry on one of the sides, and I'm glad that didn't happen here!

I declare this discussion to be flame-free. :)