NationStates Jolt Archive

Before you all go "OMG EBIL CHRISTIAN," let me just say that I am a liberal Atheist (Anti-death penalty, pro gay marriage, and until recently pro-choice.) And before you go, "OMG ANOTHER ABORTION THREAD", no one made you click this (sorry if they did, then you can bitch if you want). Please leave if you are bored or are not interested in what i have to say, or have nothing constructive to add to the debate.

What I fail to see, as I am sure you have gathered from the title, is how abortion is a woman's rights issue. It seems to be more of a fetus-rights issue.

The fact is, while the woman's body is involved, it would seem to me that the fetus' body is slightly more involved, namely that it is being killed. Your right to swing a hammer ends where my face begins, literally in this case. Unless a woman's life is in danger, I don't see any reason to have an abortion that justifies killing a baby. The fact that you got drunk one night and had unprotected sex does NOT entitle you to kill another person. Would it mess up your life? Damn, that sucks. You can't end his. Abortion isn't murder, because it is legal, but it is killing another person. Does anyone in here deny this? And is killing another person not immoral?

"BUT OMG, LIKE, ITS NOT BORN, SO, LIKE, IT DOESN'T HAVE RIGHTS LOL!!1!!"

Wow. Ok, so is it ok to torture the baby? No? So the only right it doesn't have is to life? Can someone explain this to me? Call me stupid (I know one of you clever, articulate debaters will say "OK YOUR STUPID LOL"), but I don't follow your logic here. Kindly explain.

Is it ok to kill the baby 30 seconds before it is born? But not 30 seconds later? Where do you draw the line?

You know what? If you don't want it, give it up for adoption. I have talked to several adopted people, and they have all told me that they would rather have been adopted than aborted. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but I'm confident you will find similar sentiments among other adopted people. It's not your choice to decide if other people die. You have no right to kill anyone, except in self defense. (which is why if a woman's health is in danger, abortion is fine).

And you know what else?
If your not prepared to deal with the consequences of an action, don't do the action. "OMG TEENS ARE GOING TO HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX LOL!!!" (Use a condom, pill, whatever.) Ya, well teens are going to have babies then too. And its going to fuck up their lives. A leads to B. Tough cookies. I can't condone killing people because you want to have fun. Actions have consequences.


I'm not pro-choice if the choice is between death and life. Life is the only choice.

Btw, don't answer any rhetorical question in here thinking your funny.

"thinking your funny"

My what's funny?

And is killing another person not immoral?

Not if it's done in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.

Btw, don't answer any rhetorical question in here thinking your funny.

Oh shit.

*runs off*

"thinking your funny"

My what's funny?

Cool, you managed to find a grammatical error. It should be You're. I apologize. Have anything useful to add?

So the only right it doesn't have is to life?

At the expense of a woman's bodily autonomy? No. It has no such right.

Not if it's done in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.


Well, I don't think thats moral either to be honest. Unless its war in self defense or the defense of others.

At the expense of a woman's bodily autonomy? No. It has no such right.
So it should be killed? Unless in cases of rape, it was the woman's choice to put it there. If she changes her mind, it should be killed?

If a woman is a fully human citizen, she has the right to decide what to do with her body. She can decide what medical procedures are appropriate for herself with the advice of a doctor. If she does not have ownership over her own body, then she is not treated with all the rights of a human being.

Just as you said the right to swing a hammer ends where it would contact your face, the right of a fetus to exist within a woman's uterus ends with her unwillingness to carry it.

So it should be killed? Unless in cases of rape, it was the woman's choice to put it there. If she changes her mind, it should be killed?
Firstly, how have you determined that it was the woman's choice to put it there even assuming consensual sex? There is such a thing as contraceptive failure -- which would speak toward NOT wanting it there.

I find the exception for rape that most people make when they are against abortion to be hypocritical in the extreme. It's either wrong all the time or none of the time. I'd err on the side of the bodily integrity of the complete and existing human, thanks.

So it should be killed?

If the woman doesn't want it there? Yes.

Unless in cases of rape, it was the woman's choice to put it there.

No, it wasn't. It was the woman's choice to have sex.

If she changes her mind, it should be killed?

Yes. Even if she agreed beforehand, she is free at any point to change her mind about her own body.

If a woman is a fully human citizen, she has the right to decide what to do with her body. She can decide what medical procedures are appropriate for herself with the advice of a doctor. If she does not have ownership over her own body, then she is not treated with all the rights of a human being.

Just as you said the right to swing a hammer ends where it would contact your face, the right of a fetus to exist within a woman's uterus ends with her unwillingness to carry it.

But it is not her body. It is the body of another person. I agree with that argument in cases of rape, as it was not her choice, but by having sex you run the risk of becoming pregnant, and having another person inside you. I still don't see how she has the right to kill it.

Is it ok to kill the baby 30 seconds before it is born? But not 30 seconds later? Where do you draw the line?

I'll tell you where I draw the line, but I must inform you of some facts before I do so that you don't accidentally or intentionally, make some silly argument against my thoughts on this.

Namely, I am a cold-hearted apathetic jerk who has no regard for human life. Call me a monster if you so wish. But keep that in mind because "What if you were aborted" or "How can you kill a person?" arguments trying to play to my 'greater good' won't work, and just get in the way. On an emotional level, there is no difference to me between 30 seconds before, or after, birth.

But let's look at this logicly, an easy way to keep emotional disregard in check.
I believe that a fetus is not a person untill it lives independently on it's own for specific vital functions to life. I'm thinking specificly of breathing (Something which the fetus does not, and for that matter can not, do untill born). So, as far as I'm concerned, untill it breaths, it's not a person.

Now there are fun things you can do with this, such as in the later stages of pregnancy where a fetus that is 'aborted' must actually first be 'born' due to the large size, and thus can breath before being killed (Unless you go a way that causes severe damage to the woman's body by trying to kill it in her, which can include toxins), and so you can't really abort it after a certian time because in the process of the abortion it becomes a person.

But before this time? Before the lungs are formed? It's not a person. And the lungs only begin to mature in the last parts of pregnancy. Untill then it's a parasite (Not nessecarily a bad one) on the woman's body, as it relies on her, and her alone, to survive completely. That puts it under the jurisdiction of her body as far as I'm concerned, and thus it's her right to do as she chooses.

So it should be killed? Unless in cases of rape, it was the woman's choice to put it there. If she changes her mind, it should be killed?

For someone who claims to be an atheist, you're certainly falling back on the typical Christian Pro-Life tactics of appealing to emotion and visuals with your arguments by trying to make the issue of abortion focused on the supposed rights of what is technically a parasite or growth not unlike a tumor until several months into the pregnancy. Another Christian Pro-Life tactic is to assume that any woman who wasn't raped is a dirty whore that needs to deal with the consequences. This is simply not true.

You want to really do away with abortions? Then get the country's attitude towards adoption changed. The only reason most women abort is because they know they're not financially stable enough to raise a child and that in a country where most people are looking for healthy WASP babies there's a good chance their offspring will linger in the limbo of a state foster care system.

If you're arguing that an embryo (not fetus, embryo) has human rights, then you well as might start saying that taking antibiotics for tapeworms and other parasites are tantamount to murder.

The Adoption agencies are overflowing in America right now. You know why? because of two reasons:

1: The People that do adopt, are more likely to adopt from forgien countries. Since I'm guessing you're American, since that is one of the few Countries that has the Abortion debate. This leaves hundreds of thousands of American Kids getting moved around from family to family their entire lives, which can hurt them emotionally.

2. Becuase people don't get Abortions.

Why is it anyone else's problem what you can and can't figure out on your own?

why cant it be both a woman's rights issue AND a fetal rights issue?

Well, I don't think thats moral either to be honest. Unless its war in self defense or the defense of others.

Actually, that's just a reference to Voltaire.

But it is not her body. It is the body of another person. I agree with that argument in cases of rape, as it was not her choice, but by having sex you run the risk of becoming pregnant, and having another person inside you. I still don't see how she has the right to kill it.

isnt that what makes it a woman's rights issue?

you dont have to agree with it to see that it IS an issue of woman's rights.

Cool, you managed to find a grammatical error. It should be You're. I apologize. Have anything useful to add?

The rights of potential life are secondary to the rights of current life. Plus unwanted children bring a host of economic and social problems. I must say your attitude is depressingly predictable. To you a kid is some kind of punishment for a woman daring to have sex for pleasure. Me I don't see kids as punishment, well, some kids, but that's their parents fault.

But it is not her body. It is the body of another person. I agree with that argument in cases of rape, as it was not her choice, but by having sex you run the risk of becoming pregnant, and having another person inside you. I still don't see how she has the right to kill it.

When you choose to drive a car, you run the risk of getting into a collision. Does this mean that since you knew the risk, you're not transported to the hospital for treatment of your ruptured spleen?

It IS her body, and you're talking about treating her like property if she cannot decide what stays and what goes. Nobody cares if she has a breast reduction or liposuction, which arguably more invasive to "her" than a fetus attaching itself, unasked, to her uterine wall.

What I fail to see, as I am sure you have gathered from the title, is how abortion is a woman's rights issue. It seems to be more of a fetus-rights issue.

You apparently fail to see a great deal. I'm not sure your myopia is our problem.

Abortion is a woman's right issue because it necessarily involves the question of control over a woman's own body. You may argue (as you unfortunately do) that it is ALSO a question of the rights of the unborn. That doesn't make it no longer an issue involving the woman's body. At MOST, it means that some balancing is required.

Is it ok to kill the baby 30 seconds before it is born? But not 30 seconds later? Where do you draw the line?


This is a good example. You fail to realize (1) that the issue is when (or if) the unborn becomes a person and (2) U.S. law errors on the side of caution by allowing states to ban abortion beyond the point of viability.

When you choose to drive a car, you run the risk of getting into a collision. Does this mean that since you knew the risk, you're not transported to the hospital for treatment of your ruptured spleen?

It IS her body, and you're talking about treating her like property if she cannot decide what stays and what goes. Nobody cares if she has a breast reduction or liposuction, which arguably more "her" than a fetus attaching to her uterine wall.

Me getting a new spleen does not involve killing anyone. And a breast is not a human, and it is her body, so i do not care. I do not wish to tell women what they can and cant do with their bodies, only what they can and can't do with others bodies.

Me getting a new spleen does not involve killing anyone. And a breast is not a human, and it is her body, so i do not care. I do not wish to tell women what they can and cant do with their bodies, only what they can and can't do with others bodies.

Really? Where do human spleens come from? Albequerque?

How is breast tissue less human than a fetus, please?

How is it another body when it is attached to and unable to exist outside of her body?

You apparently fail to see a great deal. I'm not sure your myopia is our problem.

Abortion is a woman's right issue because it necessarily involves the question of control over a woman's own body. You may argue (as you unfortunately do) that it is ALSO a question of the rights of the unborn. That doesn't make it no longer an issue involving the woman's body. At MOST, it means that some balancing is required.



This is a good example. You fail to realize (1) that the issue is when (or if) the unborn becomes a person and (2) U.S. law errors on the side of caution by allowing states to ban abortion beyond the point of viability.

It is not an issue over the woman's body- THE FETUS IS NOT THE WOMAN. Sure some balancing is required. Death or life. Pick. There isn't an in between.

I don't really care what US law says. Obviously, I am in disagreement with it. And I do understand that it is an issue of when the unborn becomes a person, demonstrated by my asking the question, where do you draw the line? You quoted it, yet seem to have missed it.

where do you draw the line?

Where it is viable and can survive on its own.

It is not an issue over the woman's body- THE FETUS IS NOT THE WOMAN.

For the first however many months after conception, it's a parasite sticking inside of her. It drains her to keep itself alive.

So you're right, the fetus and the woman are different. One can survive alone, the other can't and needs to latch onto and suck the life blood out of the other.

How can you say it's not an issue over the woman's body?

Really? Where do human spleens come from? Albequerque?
No one is killed for the purpose of obtaining the spleen- they don't abduct people and hold them down and cut their spleens out. Legally, at least.

How is breast tissue less human than a fetus, please?
Because the breast tissue has no capability to think, feel pain (it has nerves but cannot feel pain itself), be self aware, reproduce, move, eat, drink, love, anything that makes a human a human.
How is it another body when it is attached to and unable to exist outside of her body?
Because it has (or will have) its own set of organs, brain, and limbs. It is also a member of the homo sapien sapien species, making it human.

It IS her body, and you're talking about treating her like property if she cannot decide what stays and what goes. Nobody cares if she has a breast reduction or liposuction, which arguably more invasive to "her" than a fetus attaching itself, unasked, to her uterine wall.And your argument can be turned around and said that she is treating the fetus like property.:)

For the first however many months after conception, it's a parasite sticking inside of her. It drains her to keep itself alive.

So you're right, the fetus and the woman are different. One can survive alone, the other can't and needs to latch onto and suck the life blood out of the other.


So? Kill it, just because it cannot survive outside of the mother?


How can you say it's not an issue over the woman's body?
Please refer to the op. It is, to some extent. However, unless her life is threatened, it is more an issue over the baby's life.

It is not an issue over the woman's body- THE FETUS IS NOT THE WOMAN.

Um. Prior to the point of viability, the fetus must live entirely within the body of the woman. So, yes, the woman's body is necessarily involved. If we could simply safely remove fetuses from woman without harming them would you object to such a transfer?

Sure some balancing is required. Death or life. Pick. There isn't an in between.

Death or life. Your ham sandwich involves issues of death or life. Pick. The isn't an in between. My guess is that you freely choose death all the time.

I don't really care what US law says. Obviously, I am in disagreement with it. And I do understand that it is an issue of when the unborn becomes a person, demonstrated by my asking the question, where do you draw the line? You quoted it, yet seem to have missed it.

Information offered doesn't seem to be permeating your brain. The question is when an unborn becomes a person.

Five necessary and sufficient conditions are embedded in the commonsense notion of personhood:
1) being conscious , e.g. aware of one's surroundings.
2) being conscious of itself, i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.
3) being able to reason and know, e.g. plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.
4) being a sentient being, e.g. feel pain/pleasure.
5) being able to have emotions.

Thus at some point an unborn becomes a person by satisfying the above criteria.

IN THE MEANTIME, abortion law protects the interests of unborn persons by generally banning abortions beyond the point of viability.

If you are going to say you disagree with this legal scheme you are going to have to explain where and why you disagree.

So? Kill it, just because it cannot survive outside of the mother?

Until it has a working brain, it's nothing but a leech. It has the potential to become more, but potential =/= actual.


Please refer to the op. It is, to some extent. However, unless her life is threatened, it is more an issue over the baby's life.

Except it's not a baby, it's a fetus. And lots of things have life that we take away on a daily basis. That chair you're sitting on is made of trees that were killed. That ham you had today had to come from a dead pig. (No, I don't care if you didn't actually have ham.)

Abortion isn't murder, because it is legal, but it is killing another person. Does anyone in here deny this?


Yes, because a fetus isn't a person. No more than a bunch of unfertilized eggs or sperm. It's a potential person, no more, no less.

And no, you can't argue that it's a 100% guaranteed person either, because natural pregnancies have all sorts of complications, not to mention that half the time, fertilized eggs don't implant in the uterus and get washed out. Are you going to call those people killers too?


Wow. Ok, so is it ok to torture the baby?


Fetus != baby. Until you learn that, you have no argument beyond the emotional.


Is it ok to kill the baby 30 seconds before it is born? But not 30 seconds later?


This is nothing more than a falsehood. Even trimester abortions don't happen at that late a stage.


Where do you draw the line?


Where people like you are unable to see because they use sensationalist emotionally charged arguments rather than ones supported by facts.


I have talked to several adopted people, and they have all told me that they would rather have been adopted than aborted.


Why not ask them if they would rather have a bullet in their head or not? Your question is simply stupid.


It's not your choice to decide if other people die. You have no right to kill anyone, except in self defense. (which is why if a woman's health is in danger, abortion is fine).

Fetus != people/


If your not prepared to deal with the consequences of an action, don't do the action.


Stop wearing seatbelts. Forever. Never take medication. Don't staunch wounds. Bleed to death. If you aren't prepared to die in an accident, or from disease, don't drive, or live. Preventive measures are merely escapism from the consequences from your actions.


I'm not pro-choice if the choice is between death and life. Life is the only choice.


You aren't pro-choice. You're argument is loaded with emotional lies, false scenarios, cherry picked situations and downright tripe. You're a misogynist.

No one is killed for the purpose of obtaining the spleen- they don't abduct people and hold them down and cut their spleens out. Legally, at least.
Where do spleens come from, then?

Because the breast tissue has no capability to think, feel pain (it has nerves but cannot feel pain itself), be self aware, reproduce, move, eat, drink, love, anything that makes a human a human.
And neither does a fetus. Btw, all tissue has the ability to reproduce -- or are you unaware of the constant reproduction of cells and death and sloughing off of old ones?

Because it has (or will have) its own set of organs, brain, and limbs. It is also a member of the homo sapien sapien species, making it human.
And yet, it does not yet. It is intertwined with a woman's bloodstream, forces her kidneys to screen its toxins from her blood, steals calcium from her bones...

Um. Prior to the point of viability, the fetus must live entirely within the body of the woman. So, yes, the woman's body is necessarily involved. If we could simply safely remove fetuses from woman without harming them would you object to such a transfer?
Yep.



Death or life. Your ham sandwich involves issues of death or life. Pick. The isn't an in between. My guess is that you freely choose death all the time.
I would like to know when I pick the death of a human being. Please, inform me.


Information offered doesn't seem to be permeating your brain. The question is when an unborn becomes a person.

Five necessary and sufficient conditions are embedded in the commonsense notion of personhood:
1) being conscious , e.g. aware of one's surroundings.
2) being conscious of itself, i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.
3) being able to reason and know, e.g. plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.
4) being a sentient being, e.g. feel pain/pleasure.
5) being able to have emotions.

Thus at some point an unborn becomes a person by satisfying the above criteria.

IN THE MEANTIME, abortion law protects the interests of unborn persons by generally banning abortions beyond the point of viability.

If you are going to say you disagree with this legal scheme you are going to have to explain where and why you disagree. I disagree that something must meet those qualifications to receive legal protection.
The fetus, even if it does not meet the conditions at the present time, will most likely meet the conditions in the next several months.
A left over in vitro embryo will most likely not meet those qualifications, thusly experimenting with them is acceptable.

And your argument can be turned around and said that she is treating the fetus like property.:)

Rather more like evicting a troublesome and non-paying tenant. It's not a landlord's fault if someone who's not paying the rent can't find another place to live, is it?

Before you all go "OMG EBIL CHRISTIAN," let me just say that I am a liberal Atheist (Anti-death penalty, pro gay marriage, and until recently pro-choice.) And before you go, "OMG ANOTHER ABORTION THREAD", no one made you click this (sorry if they did, then you can bitch if you want). Please leave if you are bored or are not interested in what i have to say, or have nothing constructive to add to the debate.

What I fail to see, as I am sure you have gathered from the title, is how abortion is a woman's rights issue. It seems to be more of a fetus-rights issue.

The fact is, while the woman's body is involved, it would seem to me that the fetus' body is slightly more involved, namely that it is being killed. Your right to swing a hammer ends where my face begins, literally in this case. Unless a woman's life is in danger, I don't see any reason to have an abortion that justifies killing a baby. The fact that you got drunk one night and had unprotected sex does NOT entitle you to kill another person. Would it mess up your life? Damn, that sucks. You can't end his. Abortion isn't murder, because it is legal, but it is killing another person. Does anyone in here deny this? And is killing another person not immoral?

"BUT OMG, LIKE, ITS NOT BORN, SO, LIKE, IT DOESN'T HAVE RIGHTS LOL!!1!!"

Wow. Ok, so is it ok to torture the baby? No? So the only right it doesn't have is to life? Can someone explain this to me? Call me stupid (I know one of you clever, articulate debaters will say "OK YOUR STUPID LOL"), but I don't follow your logic here. Kindly explain.

Is it ok to kill the baby 30 seconds before it is born? But not 30 seconds later? Where do you draw the line?

You know what? If you don't want it, give it up for adoption. I have talked to several adopted people, and they have all told me that they would rather have been adopted than aborted. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but I'm confident you will find similar sentiments among other adopted people. It's not your choice to decide if other people die. You have no right to kill anyone, except in self defense. (which is why if a woman's health is in danger, abortion is fine).

And you know what else?
If your not prepared to deal with the consequences of an action, don't do the action. "OMG TEENS ARE GOING TO HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX LOL!!!" (Use a condom, pill, whatever.) Ya, well teens are going to have babies then too. And its going to fuck up their lives. A leads to B. Tough cookies. I can't condone killing people because you want to have fun. Actions have consequences.


I'm not pro-choice if the choice is between death and life. Life is the only choice.

Btw, don't answer any rhetorical question in here thinking your funny.

Let me ask you something and answer honestly:

If there were(and always had been) a 50% chance with each conception that the Man carried the pregnancy, do you think there'd even be a debate?

Imagine pregnant men throughout history. Tell me abortion rights wouldn't be a given; nevermind paid maternity(paternity?) leave.

Yes, it's a woman's rights issue.

And your argument can be turned around and said that she is treating the fetus like property.:)

Exactly, the entire issue of rights is simply squashing a legal aspect to an emotional issue. Whether a fetus is human or not, when it becomes a human is just an irrelevant argument ultimately.

The simple fact is that there are reasons why people have abortions, and whether they act on those reasons is based on whatever their conscience can handle - it's easier to abort early because there's little visible sign of a baby, it's not real within the mind.

No one casually has a late term abortion at all, there's generally extremely good reasons and having laws against those reasons are both stupid, unproductive and overall adding extra emotional burden on a very difficult decision.

It should be a question of individual conscience and pro-life people simply tend to imagine that women callously kill their babies without conscience - it's bullshit.

I would say murder is when the act is hidden, secretive or done out of desperation - if a fair weighing through open discussion of all the surrounding circumstances are taken into consideration then I can't see any point at which abortion should not be allowed.

No one would cut out a tumour by themselves unless cutting out tumours was banned after a certain time, now a fetus is not necessarily killing you of course but no one would perform an abortion without seeking all advice possible if it weren't for it being illegal.

I for one would rather a woman had the ability to seek all advice possible.

The only form of abortion I would ban is those done outside of proper medical care and I would say that proper medical care is necessary about the same time it is now, around 12 weeks.

Because the breast tissue has no capability to think, feel pain (it has nerves but cannot feel pain itself), be self aware, reproduce, move, eat, drink, love, anything that makes a human a human.

Neither does a fetus. You fail.

Neither does a fetus. You fail.

Fetuses can feel pain, IIRC.

Until it has a working brain, it's nothing but a leech. It has the potential to become more, but potential =/= actual.




Except it's not a baby, it's a fetus. And lots of things have life that we take away on a daily basis. That chair you're sitting on is made of trees that were killed. That ham you had today had to come from a dead pig. (No, I don't care if you didn't actually have ham.)
No, but it will likely become a baby. Trees aren't people. Pigs aren't people.

Yes, because a fetus isn't a person. No more than a bunch of unfertilized eggs or sperm. It's a potential person, no more, no less.
No, but it will likely become a person.

And no, you can't argue that it's a 100% guaranteed person either, because natural pregnancies have all sorts of complications, not to mention that half the time, fertilized eggs don't implant in the uterus and get washed out. Are you going to call those people killers too?
No, because they didn't kill it.



Fetus != baby. Until you learn that, you have no argument beyond the emotional. I understand that. It will likely become a baby, do I need to say it again?



This is nothing more than a falsehood. Even trimester abortions don't happen at that late a stage.
It's a hypothetical situation, designed to show that just because something isn't a baby doesn't mean that it wont become one.


Where people like you are unable to see because they use sensationalist emotionally charged arguments rather than ones supported by facts.
Saying killing people is wrong is an emotional argument?


Why not ask them if they would rather have a bullet in their head or not? Your question is simply stupid.

I was being slightly sarcastic. I am implying that living is better than death. At least for us to decide for someone.

Fetus != people/
Understood.



Stop wearing seatbelts. Forever. Never take medication. Don't staunch wounds. Bleed to death. If you aren't prepared to die in an accident, or from disease, don't drive, or live. Preventive measures are merely escapism from the consequences from your actions.
If you aren't prepared to die in an accident, don't drive. The rest of this is just plain stupid.


You aren't pro-choice. You're argument is loaded with emotional lies, false scenarios, cherry picked situations and downright tripe. You're a misogynist. I'm a misogynist? Really? Thanks for telling me, I had no idea! False scenarios? Such as..... oh wait, I had one hypothetical one. Cherry picked situations? Did you read my post? Give me a not cherry picked situation.

Neither does a fetus. You fail.

But it will most likely be able to...... the 30% chance that it doesn't isn't enough to allow millions of other fetuses to be killed.

No, but it will likely become a baby. Trees aren't people. Pigs aren't people.

A fetus is about as smart, feels as much pain, and can feel about as much emotion as a tree. Which is to say nothing of the pig.

Like I said, potential =/= actual. Just because a fetus CAN become a human doesn't mean it is. Example, I have the potential to become a senior citizen one day. Do I get to eat off the senior menu and pay senior prices at the theater? No, I don't, because I'm not actually 65. I only have the potential to be.

Ok, so is it ok to torture the baby?

what stage of development are you talking about here? baby is presumably not the word you actually mean.

Is it ok to kill the baby 30 seconds before it is born? But not 30 seconds later? Where do you draw the line?

1) in certain circumstances, sure.
2) actually, sometimes it is still ok even then. depends on the reason.
3) there is no hard and fast line. it is trivially demonstrated that early on there is nothing objectionable about abortion at all. later, as things develop, we start needing greater and greater reason for it. but even after birth, infanticide is clearly sometimes the right thing to do.

but even after birth, infanticide is clearly sometimes the right thing to do.

When?

When?

Like when you're in SPARTAAAAAAAA!!

The fetus, even if it does not meet the conditions at the present time, will most likely meet the conditions in the next several months.
A left over in vitro embryo will most likely not meet those qualifications, thusly experimenting with them is acceptable.

By that argument, 14 year olds should be allowed to vote. After all, even though they do not meet the required conditions yet, they likely will in a few years.

Furthermore, your exception for rape is hypocritical. Does being raped make it legal for you to murder somebody? No.

What it ultimately boils down to is this: does the fetus have the right to use a woman's body against her will? I would argue no. The state can't force your parents to donate their kidneys to you if you need them, even if them not donating the kidneys would cause you to die. In the same way, the state cannot force a woman to let a fetus use her body, even if her refusal would cause the fetus to die.

When?

when the child in question will live in agonizing pain for a couple of months and then die, to choose an easy and obvious class of cases.

By that argument, 14 year olds should be allowed to vote. After all, even though they do not meet the required conditions yet, they likely will in a few years.

Furthermore, your exception for rape is hypocritical. Does being raped make it legal for you to murder somebody? No.


Hypocritical is the name of the game. Do you know how many anti-choicers would flip their lids if you suggested compulsory organ donation? Apparently when it comes to the right to control of one's body when lives are at stake, a corpse has more right than a woman.

Hypocritical is the name of the game. Do you know how many anti-choicers would flip their lids if you suggested compulsory organ donation? Apparently when it comes to the right to control of one's body when lives are at stake, a corpse has more right than a woman.

That... is brilliant.

*files comparison away*

That... is brilliant.

*files comparison away*

I've made the comparison quite a few times over the years and the typical response from the other podium is crickets chirping. *nod*

I've made the comparison quite a few times over the years and the typical response from the other podium is crickets chirping. *nod*

it's amazing how frequently you can get that response from them

Which just goes to show that most "Pro-Life" activists ironically only care about the unborn and the dead.

it's amazing how frequently you can get that response from them

That's why their favourite argument is fetus rights because, really, trying to determine when a fetus becomes human is entirely up for debate - the fact is that it simply doesn't matter.

Fetuses can feel pain, IIRC.

Not before they develop a fully functional brain.

An embryo, which is what we're talking about here, a fetus starts after 8 weeks past fertilization, is for all intents and purposes, brain dead. It HAS no higher functions, for most of its existence, it didn't even have a brain period! It feels no pain, it is not self aware. Yes, in the future it might gain those things, it might also become the next Hitler. Stating that we have to behave as if it is a person now because of what it might be is a very silly argument to use as has been pointed out.

Since it is not a person, the choice resides with the one who is, namely the woman.

No, but it will likely become a person.

It can, not guaranteed.


I understand that. It will likely become a baby, do I need to say it again?


But it isn't. It could, but isn't yet. Yet you're arguing as if it is. In your whacked out world, women would be nothing but baby machines except maybe when there's a critical defect.


It's a hypothetical situation, designed to show that just because something isn't a baby doesn't mean that it wont become one.


It's a lie. And lies do not an argument make.


Saying killing people is wrong is an emotional argument?


Because it's not people being killed. It's like PETA's retarded "chicken farms are Holocaust!" argument. Emotional tripe.


I was being slightly sarcastic. I am implying that living is better than death. At least for us to decide for someone.


Pfft. Sure living is better than death. But how'd you like to suddenly host 30 hobos, who will make your life a living hell but would die if you kicked them out?


If you aren't prepared to die in an accident, don't drive. The rest of this is just plain stupid.

About as stupid as your argument about the consequences of your action. What's the matter? Afraid to pony up to the consequences of living? That you might get sick and die without medicine?

Death is a consequence of living. Don't put it off! Your two faced rubbish regarding consequences identifies you for what you really are.


I'm a misogynist? Really? Thanks for telling me, I had no idea!


Your treatment of pregnancy as a punishment for women for having sex tells all.


False scenarios? Such as..... oh wait, I had one hypothetical one.


One lie is all it takes.

Like you being a pedophile.


Cherry picked situations? Did you read my post? Give me a not cherry picked
situation.

Like your pretense that every pregnancy is the result of unprotected sex. Obviously your narrow minded views are incapable of understanding concepts like contraception and protection failure.

But oh noooo! All women must suffer for sex.

How about we make YOU carry pregnancy to term. And then push a basketball out your ass. Then maybe you'd sing a different tune.

Um. Prior to the point of viability, the fetus must live entirely within the body of the woman. So, yes, the woman's body is necessarily involved. If we could simply safely remove fetuses from woman without harming them would you object to such a transfer? Yep.

Either you misuderstood the question or your answer involves whole new dimensions of stupidity. You might want to re-read my question and try again.


I would like to know when I pick the death of a human being. Please, inform me.

You didn't say life or death of a human being. You said life or death. And you make life or death decisions all the time.

But why does "human being" matter? What moral meaning does the term "human being" have -- especially in contrast to the meaning of person.

I disagree that something must meet those qualifications to receive legal protection.

I didn't say those qualifications were necessary for something to meet legal protections. I did say that they were necessary and sufficient to holding someone to be a person. Other things may be protected by myriad laws, but persons have rights.

But, pray tell, what is a person and how do we determine if something qualifies for personhood?


The fetus, even if it does not meet the conditions at the present time, will most likely meet the conditions in the next several months.

You are granting that the fetus does not meet the conditions at the present time, nor until late into the pregnancy. Rights are for persons, not potential persons--just as voting is for citizens, not for those with the potential to vote one day.

No, but it will likely become a baby. Trees aren't people. Pigs aren't people.

And yet pigs can make a better case for personhood than a embryo or zygote and we feel little compunction about killing them simply because their flesh is tasty.

Fetuses can feel pain, IIRC.

Experts generally believe that fetuses don't feel pain until the third trimester. FWIW, wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain)

Hypocritical is the name of the game. Do you know how many anti-choicers would flip their lids if you suggested compulsory organ donation? Apparently when it comes to the right to control of one's body when lives are at stake, a corpse has more right than a woman.

Simple brilliant, as the op responded? or is there still deathly silence from the pro-life corner?

Simple brilliant, as the op responded? or is there still deathly silence from the pro-life corner?

To be fair, whatsisname is offline.

The fetus, even if it does not meet the conditions at the present time, will most likely meet the conditions in the next several months.
A left over in vitro embryo will most likely not meet those qualifications, thusly experimenting with them is acceptable.

If we terminate the fetus *before* it meets the conditions, it will never meet those conditions.

Which means its potential value all comes down to the intent of the mother.

If she wants it to become a person, it becomes a person (barring accidents and such). If she doesn't, the new person will never come into being. The husk that could have contained it will be disposed of - but it is just a husk that is being disposed. The owner who would have claimed it never existed.

What I fail to see, as I am sure you have gathered from the title, is how abortion is a woman's rights issue. It seems to be more of a fetus-rights issue.That's just fucking stupid. It is a women's rights issue on the basis that women, and whether they have the right to end their pregnancy. That the right to end a pregnancy is in conflict with an unborn's right to life doesn't somehow mean it's not a women's right issue.

Let me elaborate: Slavery being a human rights issue does not somehow mean it's not a poperty rights issue as well. It just means that the right of human beings to be free is in conflict with someone elses right to own human beings. Whichever side is right or wrong has absolutely no influence on whether it's a human rights and property rights issue.

The only way you could "fail to see" how abortion is a women's rights issue is if you also fail to see that pregnancy occurs inside the bodies of women, and that human fetuses only exist if women's bodies actively build them.

Which, of course, is exactly what dudely dudes like the OP are all about.

I suppose I can't blame him for wanting to ignore the fact that women exist. I'm sure most of us feel the same about him.

Because the breast tissue has no capability to think, feel pain (it has nerves but cannot feel pain itself), be self aware, reproduce, move, eat, drink, love, anything that makes a human a human.


And there is the rub. Can you show how a fetus has the capability to think, feel pain, that it has nerves, is self aware, etc?

No, but it will likely become a baby. Trees aren't people. Pigs aren't people.

So the killing of any other species bar us is fine with you? Isn't that specisist? A baby pig can feel as much pain(physical & emotional) as a human, why make the differance?

So the killing of any other species bar us is fine with you? Isn't that specisist? A baby pig can feel as much pain(physical & emotional) as a human, why make the differance?Because of predation.

Because of predation.

Yes granted, but I wanted to see what the OP would answer, damn you!;)

Yes granted, but I wanted to see what the OP would answer, damn you!;)
He'll get his chance :p

If there were(and always had been) a 50% chance with each conception that the Man carried the pregnancy, do you think there'd even be a debate?


The debate would be entirely different. For one, it would be debated by another species, because homo sapiens would be extinct, since the only males willing to accept that risk lived in small tribes in San Francisco, Amsterdam, and Manhattan's Upper West Side, and they were all eaten by bears.

Even if the risk was only 10%, the common male response to a Victoria's Secret ad would be terror, not lust, and the reaction most females would get to their sexual advances would be "get your paws off me, woman!"

You'd probably have to take it down to about 1% or so, and add in lots of alchohol, for the continued existence of Humanity.

Fetuses can feel pain, IIRC.

no. they dont feel pain until about 20 weeks, maybe a bit later.

the vast majority of abortions are done at less than 12 weeks. those done at 20+ are done for medical reasons.

.

Like I said, potential =/= actual. Just because a fetus CAN become a human doesn't mean it is.

Especially considering that with the probable course of cloning technology over the next 50 years, any glob of spit CAN become a human.

Worrying about what a fetus might be one day is sort of like convicting a camper of arson- because the wood he used in the campfire might have been part of someone's home one day.

Here's the ultimate solution for all of you people who are so concerned about the "rights" of the fetus, that respects both those rights and the rights of the woman:

If the woman wants to have an abortion take the baby out without killing it and turn it lose in the wild.

Tada. The woman gets her body, and the fetus gets its (admittedly short) life. :D

Here's the ultimate solution for all of you people who are so concerned about the "rights" of the fetus, that respects both those rights and the rights of the woman:

If the woman wants to have an abortion take the baby out without killing it and turn it lose in the wild.

Tada. The woman gets her body, and the fetus gets its (admittedly short) life. :D

I have zero objection to that. Sounds good, and hey, it's fair. You gave the foetus life. It may not have been good, but, it's better than killing, right? :D

Besides, everyone knows that it's perfectly fine for people to die (in war or otherwise) as long as they're not in a woman. :p At least that seems to be the belief of most of these pro-"life" advocates.

Besides, everyone knows that it's perfectly fine for people to die (in war or otherwise) as long as they're not in a woman. :p At least that seems to be the belief of most of these pro-"life" advocates.

And you never know what might come along to take over as mother for that foetus. Maybe that nice fox who's been after the farmer's chickens would do it...

A. Fetus. Is. Not. A. Human. Life.


When most abortions are preformed, it has no brain, it has no centrel nervous system, it has no heart. It is dependent soley on the organs and blood of the mother.


I really cant see whats so hard about this to grasp. As an athiest, you dont even have the "but it might have a soul!!!11!!1!" arguement to fall back on.


So, with those things in mind, not allowing a woman to terminate an unwanted pregency is controling a woman's body and limiting her choice of what to do with that body. That is how it is a women's rights issue.

At the expense of a woman's bodily autonomy? No. It has no such right.

If the act to create the baby was voluntary then the women brought it on herself. she shouldn't kill it for her msitake. It is called adoption. Before anyone calls me a chauvanist I do admit the man is equally at fault as long as it was voluntary for him too. If the baby is kept he should help raise it and be there for it. If it is given up for adoption becasue she doesn't want it he should either take the baby or support her decision.

If the act to create the baby was voluntary then the women brought it on herself. she shouldn't kill it for her msitake. It is called adoption. Before anyone calls me a chauvanist I do admit the man is equally at fault as long as it was voluntary for him too. If the baby is kept he should help raise it and be there for it. If it is given up for adoption becasue she doesn't want it he should either take the baby or support her decision.


Stop calling it a baby and saying "kill" for these reasons:

A. Fetus. Is. Not. A. Human. Life.


When most abortions are preformed, it has no brain, it has no centrel nervous system, it has no heart. It is dependent soley on the organs and blood of the mother.

It is a women's rights issue, but in almost all cases anti choice has absolutely nothing to do with sexism. If men could get pregnant, I very seriously doubt that anyone anti choice would approve of them getting an abortion, the intention behind being anti choice has nothing to do with sexism, despite the fact that as an implication a woman's 'right' (if the right not to be pregnant is one) will be limited.

A. Fetus. Is. Not. A. Human. Life.


Errr... yes it is, it is 100% genetically human. What you mean to say is, it is not a human 'person' (and person has a very arbitrary definition, I tend to find).

Errr... yes it is, it is 100% genetically human.

Indeed. Just like your severed arm is 100% human ;)

What you mean to say is, it is not a human 'person' (and person has a very arbitrary definition, I tend to find).

True. Then again, finding a definition of person that includes something with no brain and no feelings is a tad bit tricky without going all metaphysical and invoking "souls" and such.

If the act to create the baby was voluntary then the women brought it on herself. she shouldn't kill it for her msitake. It is called adoption. Before anyone calls me a chauvanist I do admit the man is equally at fault as long as it was voluntary for him too. If the baby is kept he should help raise it and be there for it. If it is given up for adoption becasue she doesn't want it he should either take the baby or support her decision.

But what if the man wants it adopted? this is against his human right to give up a child if he force to help. :p
*runs away before he can get hit*

No, but it will likely become a baby. Trees aren't people. Pigs aren't people.

Every time you have sex you have the potential to make life. By your rationale, birth control shouldn't be used either. If a woman has a viable egg ready to be fertilized, and the man provides viable sperm you have the potential for a baby. By using birth control you are essentially preventing a life from existing.

Every time you have sex you have the potential to make life. By your rationale, birth control shouldn't be used either. If a woman has a viable egg ready to be fertilized, and the man provides viable sperm you have the potential for a baby. By using birth control you are essentially preventing a life from existing.

Furthermore, the same logic seems to imply you'd be obligated to fertilize and bring to birth all viable eggs. If you are being forced to invest time, energy and resources into turning a potentiality into an actuality then you actually justify forced pregnancies.

Indeed. Just like your severed arm is 100% human ;)


But the fetus is also a separate life.


True. Then again, finding a definition of person that includes something with no brain and no feelings is a tad bit tricky without going all metaphysical and invoking "souls" and such.

But it's not too difficult to call something with a functioning brain and heart a person, and often a fetus will have this when it is aborted.

Every time you have sex you have the potential to make life. By your rationale, birth control shouldn't be used either. If a woman has a viable egg ready to be fertilized, and the man provides viable sperm you have the potential for a baby. By using birth control you are essentially preventing a life from existing.

Fail. An egg or sperm, left to themselves in their natural environment, without outside interference, will die.

A fertilized egg, left to itself in its natural environment (the womb), without outside interference, will mature into a human being.

But it's not too difficult to call something with a functioning brain and heart a person, and often a fetus will have this when it is aborted.



Actually, often it wont.

A fertilized egg, left to itself in its natural environment (the womb), without outside interference, will mature into a human being.

Umm...it is only by outside interference that it survives, that being the interference of the mother. Sure, it may be a natural process, but that does not mean the mother's resources and energy must necessarily interfere in order for that fertilized egg to turn into a live baby.

Furthermore, the same logic seems to imply you'd be obligated to fertilize and bring to birth all viable eggs. If you are being forced to invest time, energy and resources into turning a potentiality into an actuality then you actually justify forced pregnancies.

Exactly. I'm sure each one of my eggs that is flushed monthly down the toilet would rather be adopted than floating in the ocean. As a sexually active 27 year old, I've had the potential to create life many many times. By the OP's logic, I'm just as evil as a woman who has an abortion. Many times over.

I'm also curious what the OP's opinion is of the copper IUDs. They don't prevent fertilization, only implantation.

If a computer system was developing into an intelligent being, would it be moral to delete it?

If it's immoral (as some argue) to kill an animal which will never be human...

Meh, I'll never understand how one can be vegan (for philosophical reasons) and pro-abortion (for the same philosophical reasons).

But it's not too difficult to call something with a functioning brain and heart a person, and often a fetus will have this when it is aborted.

I daresay that abortions in that stage of the pregnancy are illegal in almost every country on this planet unless there is a direct threat to the life of the mother.

I'm not against early pregnancy abortions, but the idea that there's some unalienable right to your own body confuses me. Your rights are what society gives you.

Fail. An egg or sperm, left to themselves in their natural environment, without outside interference, will die.

Eventually, yes. Of course, if you leave a fetus in a womb indefinitely, it will eventually die too.


A fertilized egg, left to itself in its natural environment (the womb), without outside interference, will mature into a human being.
No, it won't. A fertilized egg will not mature into anything unless the female body actively participates and contributes to its growth. You can shove fertilized eggs into a womb as if it were a gum-ball machine, but if the woman's body doesn't provide the correct "outside interference" then none of those eggs will ever turn into a baby.

One of the most persistent myths today is the notion that the female body is simply the passive "environment" in which a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus develops all by itself. Quite frankly, that's just crap. The female body must be actively and constantly involved in building a baby, or there ain't gonna be no baby.

Umm...it is only by outside interference that it survives, that being the interference of the mother. Sure, it may be a natural process, but that does not mean the mother's resources and energy must necessarily interfere in order for that fertilized egg to turn into a live baby.
That's why I said its natural environment.

Fail. An egg or sperm, left to themselves in their natural environment, without outside interference, will die.

A fertilized egg, left to itself in its natural environment (the womb), without outside interference, will mature into a human being.

Every time I have protected sex I prevent the possiblity of life happening. Depending on my method of birth control I might not be preventing fertilization and merely implantation. It doesn't matter that an egg and sperm outside the natural environment can't survive, when the two meet in nature's incubator, that is the perfect environment.

In other words, the only moral birth control under the OP's philosophy would be the pull-out method or the trythm method. And copper IUDs would be completely out of the question.

Actually, often it wont.

Well lets see shall we:

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy.

And at 9 weeks, does the fetus have a brain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

The heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs are present, but are not developed sufficiently for the fetus to survive on its own.[12] The fetus is surrounded by amniotic fluid which offers protection and allows room for movement. The pregnant woman's placenta and umbilical cord provide oxygen, nutrients, and allow waste elimination.[12]


So basically, the brain and heart is present, but the fetus is not yet viable and is dependent on the mother to survive. Take from this what you will, I just thought I would add some hard facts.

That's why I said its natural environment.

I'm confused as to why that's relevant, though. A fertilized egg can also simply not finish developing in its natural environment, there isn't a guarantee but this does not necessitate aborting all pregnancies just as the fact that the egg does often finish developing in the womb necessitate birthing all pregnancies.

Why don't we just be honest and call abortion infanticide. If you're okay with abortion, you, be logic, must be okay with infanticide.

A fetus is a collection of cells, that, without a womb, will die and never reach adult status.

An infant is a collection of organs that, without a mother, will die and never reach adult status.

Both fetuses and infants sap the mother's resources, nutrients, and energy (through the tube and later the nipple).

Both infanticide and abortion are good because they 1. Eliminate the possibility of disabled/retarded people from reaching reproductive age and 2. Stop potentially bad mothers from passing on their alleles to the next generation.

If you're pro-choice, stop saying "its not a human" and twisting words to make yourself feel warm all over, and just embrace infanticide...it's not all that bad!

Both infanticide and euthanasia have very beneficial aspects to them. I support the right to euthanasia but oppose the right to infanticide and abortion.

And at 9 weeks, does the fetus have a brain?

Do note:
The first measurable signs of EEG movement occur in the 12th week.

The vast majority of elective abortions takes place before this point. How many of those after this point are for health reasons ?

Why don't we just be honest and call abortion infanticide. If you're okay with abortion, you, be logic, must be okay with infanticide.

A fetus is a collection of cells, that, without a womb, will die and never reach adult status.

An infant is a collection of organs that, without a mother, will die and never reach adult status.

Both fetuses and infants sap the mother's resources, nutrients, and energy (through the tube and later the nipple).

Both infanticide and abortion are good because they 1. Eliminate the possibility of disabled/retarded people from reaching reproductive age and 2. Stop potentially bad mothers from passing on their alleles to the next generation.

If you're pro-choice, stop saying "its not a human" and twisting words to make yourself feel warm all over, and just embrace infanticide...it's not all that bad!

Both infanticide and euthanasia have very beneficial aspects to them. I support the right to euthanasia but oppose the right to infanticide and abortion.

Except that would be distinctly intellectually dishonest for a plethora of reasons that are either (a) obvious after even a minuscule amount contemplation or (b) posted in this thread and in the myriad other abortion threads on this forum. Abortion is obviously a complex issue and it's detrimental to the discussion to start using silly emotionally reactive words to muck up reasoned debate.

Why don't we just be honest and call abortion infanticide. If you're okay with abortion, you, be logic, must be okay with infanticide.Infanticide requires the victim to have been born.

Why don't we just be honest and call abortion infanticide. If you're okay with abortion, you, be logic, must be okay with infanticide.

A fetus is a collection of cells, that, without a womb, will die and never reach adult status.

An infant is a collection of organs that, without a mother, will die and never reach adult status.

Both fetuses and infants sap the mother's resources, nutrients, and energy (through the tube and later the nipple).

Both infanticide and abortion are good because they 1. Eliminate the possibility of disabled/retarded people from reaching reproductive age and 2. Stop potentially bad mothers from passing on their alleles to the next generation.

If you're pro-choice, stop saying "its not a human" and twisting words to make yourself feel warm all over, and just embrace infanticide...it's not all that bad!

Both infanticide and euthanasia have very beneficial aspects to them. I support the right to euthanasia but oppose the right to infanticide and abortion.
:rolleyes:
All that is missing from this post is the gun smileys.

Why don't we just be honest and call abortion infanticide.

Because it's not, and thus calling it that would actually be the opposite of honest?


If you're okay with abortion, you, be logic, must be okay with infanticide.

No.


A fetus is a collection of cells, that, without a womb, will die and never reach adult status.

An infant is a collection of organs that, without a mother, will die and never reach adult status.

Actually, lots of infants survive without mothers. My cousins both did.


Both fetuses and infants sap the mother's resources, nutrients, and energy (through the tube and later the nipple).

A great many mothers are not "sapped" by their biological infants. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the practice of adoption?


If you're pro-choice, stop saying "its not a human" and twisting words to make yourself feel warm all over, and just embrace infanticide...it's not all that bad!

Allow me to blow your mind:

I don't care if a fetus is "a human." I mean, I care in the sense that I'm a generally curious person, and I study neurobiology and development, but the "personhood" of a fetus means exactly dick to me in the context of this discussion.

If you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a fetus is a human person, I still would support a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy at any time and for any reason.


Both infanticide and euthanasia have very beneficial aspects to them. I support the right to euthanasia but oppose the right to infanticide and abortion.
Well, that's about as logical as everything else you've said so far, so you go ahead and have fun with that.

I promise to name my next aborted fetus "Gardiaz," just for you. ;)

Why don't we just be honest and call abortion infanticide. If you're okay with abortion, you, be logic, must be okay with infanticide.

A fetus is a collection of cells, that, without a womb, will die and never reach adult status.

An infant is a collection of organs that, without a mother, will die and never reach adult status.

Both fetuses and infants sap the mother's resources, nutrients, and energy (through the tube and later the nipple).

Both infanticide and abortion are good because they 1. Eliminate the possibility of disabled/retarded people from reaching reproductive age and 2. Stop potentially bad mothers from passing on their alleles to the next generation.

If you're pro-choice, stop saying "its not a human" and twisting words to make yourself feel warm all over, and just embrace infanticide...it's not all that bad!

Both infanticide and euthanasia have very beneficial aspects to them. I support the right to euthanasia but oppose the right to infanticide and abortion.


You got props for at least trying to have an arguement.

A Fetus is a collection of cells that cannot function on its own. It is inside the mothers body. Thats right, that body belongs to the mother, not the little womb booger. In fact, a fetus ironically fits very closely to the scientific definition of a parasite.

A Fetus is not yet a human. It has no central nervous system and it is not self aware.

A baby now has its own body. It can theoretically do all the basics on its own, like breath. It is self aware. It can feel pain.

If you dont see the difference, well...

Actually, often it wont.


Actually often it will. Only abortions in the first month will ensure no beating heart. the heart usually develops and has its first beat around the 3rd week of pregnancy.

I promise to name my next aborted fetus "Gardiaz," just for you. ;)

:eek: That's just too funny Bottle :D

Do note:
The first measurable signs of EEG movement occur in the 12th week.

The vast majority of elective abortions takes place before this point. How many of those after this point are for health reasons ?

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

The only thing I can tell you is that only 6% of all abortions occur because of health reasons (in the USA). But even assuming that all abortions that take place because of health reasons are after 12 weeks, according to quick calculations in my head, these would make up less than half of abortions from this period.

One of the most persistent myths today is the notion that the female body is simply the passive "environment" in which a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus develops all by itself. Quite frankly, that's just crap. The female body must be actively and constantly involved in building a baby, or there ain't gonna be no baby.

If the woman's body was just a passive environment, then this kind of arguemtn would hold some kind of water. I'm not saying it's a good argument, or an argument I agree with, but it wouldn't be a completely nonsensical argument.

I'm confused as to why that's relevant, though.

It's not. What you are witnessing is the twist and turns of an anti-choicer trying horribly unsuccessfully to try and define an embryo in such a way that does not also include a toe nail and/or a sperm cell in a desperate attempt to try to make his inherently illogical position appear to have a basis in rationality.

He can't, because it doesn't. Because all we're left with is:

"something with human dna, except not like all the other cells with human dna, because this one will eventually become a person, except not like a sperm or egg because those take outside developments to enter the path of personhood otherwise they'll die and a fertilzed egg doesn't, except for the fact that the woman's body must provide outside developments otherwise the embryo/fetus will die, but that's different because the woman can't conciously stop her body's natural reproductive processes, but you can conciously choose to not have sex, except a woman can choose to voluntarily stop her participation in the reproductive process by having an abortion, but we don't want her to".

Every single argument about why an embryo is "different" or should be treated differently can be defeated. Every single one. It has human dna, but so do a lot of things. It has the potential for human life, but so do sperm and eggs. It requires outside biological intervention to realize that potential, as does a sperm. And just as I can choose to withold my intervention by refusing to supply my sperm for the process, so to can a mother choose to withold her body's intervention by having an abortive procedure.

Which left in such tattered remains, all those who would deny basic human rights to women are left with is "god did it!" and interuterus photos of embryos which they hold up and yell "LOOK! LOOK! It has HANDS! You can't kill something that has HANDS!"

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html



The only thing I can tell you is that only 6% of all abortions occur because of health reasons (in the USA). But even assuming that all abortions that take place because of health reasons are after 12 weeks, according to quick calculations in my head, these would make up less than half of abortions from this period.You don't think a site called "AbortionNo" might be unreliable?

Except that would be distinctly intellectually dishonest for a plethora of reasons that are either (a) obvious after even a minuscule amount contemplation or (b) posted in this thread and in the myriad other abortion threads on this forum. Abortion is obviously a complex issue and it's detrimental to the discussion to start using silly emotionally reactive words to muck up reasoned debate.

I really don't see how infanticide is a "silly emotionally reactive" word. Am I not allowed to use the word "eugenics" as well because its just a silly, silly word?

Maybe I find it "silly" to think of a fetus like a yeast infection that needs to be disinfected? Yet, it seems that is the level of discussion that is acceptable in this "reasoned debate." If people use language to hide the actual issue under discussion, how can that discussion prove meaningful?

If you support eugenics, then bloody well say so. If you think abortion should be "Plan C" birth control, you better have a damned good reason not to have a "Plan D" baby-removal option, other than "It's soo cute!"

You don't think a site called "AbortionNo" might be unreliable?

Ah, true, bizarrely I didn't notice that name, I just searched for "abortion statistics" on Google, and that was the first thing that came up. I'll see if I can find anything more reliable.

I really don't see how infanticide is a "silly emotionally reactive" word. Am I not allowed to use the word "eugenics" as well because its just a silly, silly word?

Maybe I find it "silly" to think of a fetus like a yeast infection that needs to be disinfected? Yet, it seems that is the level of discussion that is acceptable in this "reasoned debate." If people use language to hide the actual issue under discussion, how can that discussion prove meaningful?

If you support eugenics, then bloody well say so. If you think abortion should be "Plan C" birth control, you better have a damned good reason not to have a "Plan D" baby-removal option, other than "It's soo cute!"

Please, come back when you have an arguement that isnt just "Baby killer!"

I really don't see how infanticide is a "silly emotionally reactive" word.

Silly - because it makes a false implication (embryo = infant)
Emotionally reactive - because it is meant to work on emotions.

It is in other words a lie intended to manipulate people.

Ah, true, bizarrely I didn't notice that name, I just searched for "abortion statistics" on Google, and that was the first thing that came up. I'll see if I can find anything more reliable.

I am intruiged now :) Also in how many parents opt to abort because the child will be malformed, terminally ill and so on...

Thank you for the effort made :)

Okay. Think of it this way:

Woman + Man + sex = Zygote.

Zygote + lots of physical exertion from woman = Embryo.

Embryo + Birth = Baby.


Just to get that straight so we dont have anymore confusion between the words Embryo and Baby.

EDIT: Lulz, just went to the homepage for that abortionno page, and on the front it has a picture of a big blood-ball of organs and says "Warning, abortion is a violent action that kills a baby. this website has graphical content."

Yeah, very unbiased.

Okay. Think of it this way:

Woman + Man + sex = Zygote.

Zygote + lots of physical exertion from woman = Embryo.

Embryo + Birth = Baby.


Just to get that straight so we dont have anymore confusion between the words Embryo and Baby.

Why should we get that straight? It's entirely wrong.

It's suprisingly hard to find reliable statistics on abortion, almost every website has a pro life stance (though many try to hide it).

What I'm saying is that A baby is not, in fact, an embryo. The baby is an end product of an embryo. Once an embryo is born, most people consider it to be a baby.

Most of the abortion fanatics have a problem where they equate "killing" and embryo to "murdering" a baby. I'm jsut stating that that isn't the case. I mean, if you extend that to it's illogical conclusion, you have half the points in this thread about masturbation and whatnot.

I really don't see how infanticide is a "silly emotionally reactive" word. Am I not allowed to use the word "eugenics" as well because its just a silly, silly word?It's emotionally reactive because it implies infanthood, an infant being something soft and cuddly, on something that in most stages of its development most people wouldn't want to cuddle at all. It's silly because an unborn child simply isn't an infant, by definition, which is why abortion isn't infanticide anymore than involuntary manslaughter would be murder or stealing a bicycle would be grand theft auto.

It's not. What you are witnessing is the twist and turns of an anti-choicer trying horribly unsuccessfully to try and define an embryo in such a way that does not also include a toe nail and/or a sperm cell in a desperate attempt to try to make his inherently illogical position appear to have a basis in rationality.

He can't, because it doesn't. Because all we're left with is:

"something with human dna, except not like all the other cells with human dna, because this one will eventually become a person, except not like a sperm or egg because those take outside developments to enter the path of personhood otherwise they'll die and a fertilzed egg doesn't, except for the fact that the woman's body must provide outside developments otherwise the embryo/fetus will die, but that's different because the woman can't conciously stop her body's natural reproductive processes, but you can conciously choose to not have sex, except a woman can choose to voluntarily stop her participation in the reproductive process by having an abortion, but we don't want her to".

Every single argument about why an embryo is "different" or should be treated differently can be defeated. Every single one. It has human dna, but so do a lot of things. It has the potential for human life, but so do sperm and eggs. It requires outside biological intervention to realize that potential, as does a sperm. And just as I can choose to withold my intervention by refusing to supply my sperm for the process, so to can a mother choose to withold her body's intervention by having an abortive procedure.

Which left in such tattered remains, all those who would deny basic human rights to women are left with is "god did it!" and interuterus photos of embryos which they hold up and yell "LOOK! LOOK! It has HANDS! You can't kill something that has HANDS!"

My so-called arguments IS NOT an argument against abortion. That was the argument presented to me by my pro-choice friend.



You miss my point, silly. I'm not arguing that a fetus is special. I'm arguing that an infant is NOT special. A woman should have the right to choose when to be a mother, when to sacrifice her time and body for a child. A newly-born infant is not self-aware, will die without outside biological intervention, and has the potential to be a self-aware human.

Therefore, both fetuses and infants suck, and have no right to interfere with a woman's life and body. That's why you should be pro-choice, and why I'm almost pro-choice. It's just annoying pro-choicers who love infants that scare me away...

To clarify, a zygote is a single cell. Specifically, a zygote is the single cell that results from fertilization. A cell that is formed from the merging of two haploid cells into a diploid cell.

Once that cell begins to divide, it's not a zygote anymore. It's now an embryo. The mother's body does pretty much nothing (other than provide the egg) in order to create a zygote.

The mothers body is very much involved in the process of the embryo. The zygote, upon cell division, becomes an embryo. It remains an embryo until the 9th week of pregnancy, at which point it becomes a fetus.

What I'm saying is that A baby is not, in fact, an embryo. The baby is an end product of an embryo. Once an embryo is born, most people consider it to be a baby.

There is a fetal stage between embryo and baby. Many people, myself and the lawmakers of many countries included, believe personhood starts somewhere in the fetal stage.

You don't think a site called "AbortionNo" might be unreliable?

It might be unreliable, but the numbers they put out are actually fairly close to legitimate studies :
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

In 2004 :
Mother's Health-Related - 12%
Rape - 1%
Incest - < .5%

The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#8

I think this is a more reliable source (remember, statistics can overlap, women may have multiple reasons).

What I'm saying is that A baby is not, in fact, an embryo. The baby is an end product of an embryo. Once an embryo is born, most people consider it to be a baby.

and again, you're wrong, in that you consider an embryo ever "born". If an embryo were to leave the mother's womb, at any point when it's considered an embryo, it would die, effectively instantly. Embryos are not birthed. When a mother effectively "births" an embryo, it's called a miscarriage.

A baby is not an embryo, nor does it resemble anything even close to an embryo.

I'm pro-abortion. Women should be forced to have abortions the first two times they get pregnant, and anytime after that where they don't meet qualifications to be a parent. Adoption is NOT an option.

If a woman is a fully human citizen, she has the right to decide what to do with her body. She can decide what medical procedures are appropriate for herself with the advice of a doctor. If she does not have ownership over her own body, then she is not treated with all the rights of a human being.

Just as you said the right to swing a hammer ends where it would contact your face, the right of a fetus to exist within a woman's uterus ends with her unwillingness to carry it.


Firstly, how have you determined that it was the woman's choice to put it there even assuming consensual sex? There is such a thing as contraceptive failure -- which would speak toward NOT wanting it there.

I find the exception for rape that most people make when they are against abortion to be hypocritical in the extreme. It's either wrong all the time or none of the time. I'd err on the side of the bodily integrity of the complete and existing human, thanks.

This is why you're awesome. Logical reasoning makes my day a little brighter. :)

The point that I haven't seen yet is that ANY time you have sex, you risk getting pregnant. Therefore, no one gets pregnant by accident. That means that the pregnancy (i.e. the start of a NEW LIFE) is your responsibility. Why do we humans devalue life so much (human life, that is...if this were bird eggs or puppies, it would be a different story). It seems that the only thing important to women is that THEIR lives are not disrupted by something so trivial as a baby. Their CHOICE to have sex means that they have opted for the chance to get pregnant. Now, we have just made the solution "easy"...kill it. That way, there are no consequences for our own risky behavior. Aren't we clever little humans...:(

Maybe instead of adoption, we could develop an embryonic transplant, so that gamete-based infertile women could birth a child, and don't have to spend their time cutting up/injecting little lumps of flesh.

and again, you're wrong, in that you consider an embryo ever "born". If an embryo were to leave the mother's womb, at any point when it's considered an embryo, it would die, effectively instantly. Embryos are not birthed. When a mother effectively "births" an embryo, it's called a miscarriage.

A baby is not an embryo, nor does it resemble anything even close to an embryo.

Oddly, i'm not sure why your arguing with me, as I made an error and left out the fetal stage. Sorry. You have my sincerest apologies.

I actually agree with you and alma mater, I don't think abortion is wrong, though there is a point at which a fetus can, theoretically, with a load of work from doctors, become seperate from the mother before it's natural age of separation.

At this point, the fetus can make a premature transition into the state of baby-hood. Before that point, the fetus would have exponentially decreasing chances of survival as a baby until they reach 0/0.

Before the point where (I believe it's 1/2 survival, not sure where that is in terms of gestational time though), the removal of a fetus is non-criminal, just like the removal of any growing organ, though inadvisable in most cases, is non-criminal.

Maybe instead of adoption, we could develop an embryonic transplant, so that gamete-based infertile women could birth a child, and don't have to spend their time cutting up/injecting little lumps of flesh.

and if wishes were ponies...

Maybe instead of adoption, we could develop an embryonic transplant, so that gamete-based infertile women could birth a child, and doctors don't have to spend their time cutting up/injecting little lumps of flesh.

Better still, maybe we could put them in deep-freeze, and pluck em out as necessary. We could even analyze them and select for the best traits/least genetic defects! That would be awesome :fluffle:

What I fail to see, as I am sure you have gathered from the title, is how abortion is a woman's rights issue. It seems to be more of a fetus-rights issue.

Since when does anyone have a right to use another's body against her will?

This is also the point, I suppose. to point out that most abortions involve embryos, not fetuses.

The fact is, while the woman's body is involved, it would seem to me that the fetus' body is slightly more involved, namely that it is being killed. Your right to swing a hammer ends where my face begins, literally in this case.

Indeed. As such, the embryo/fetus has no rights to the woman's body, no matter what rights it may have.

Abortion isn't murder, because it is legal, but it is killing another person. Does anyone in here deny this? And is killing another person not immoral?

Define "person". Do it in such a way that an embryo is included in the definition, but an organ is not. Arguments like "it will eventually be...." don't count.

I'm not pro-choice if the choice is between death and life. Life is the only choice.

The choice is between pregnancy and the end of a pregnancy.

and if wishes were ponies...

You could have your own My little pony TV show.

Oddly, i'm not sure why your arguing with me, as I made an error and left out the fetal stage. Sorry. You have my sincerest apologies.

Was not so much arguing as pointing out the error. A baby is not an "embryo that's been born" it is a fetus that's been born. A sufficiently developed fetus at that.


Before the point where (I believe it's 1/2 survival, not sure where that is in terms of gestational time though), the removal of a fetus is non-criminal, just like the removal of any growing organ, though inadvisable in most cases, is non-criminal.

The holding in Planned Parenthood v. Casey is generally that at the point of "fetal viability" an abortion can be banned.

What's the point of fetal viability? I dunno, don't think SCOTUS knew either.

and if wishes were ponies...

...the world would be overrun with ponies?

It might be unreliable, but the numbers they put out are actually fairly close to legitimate studies :
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

In 2004 :
Mother's Health-Related - 12%
Rape - 1%
Incest - < .5%
That may be the case, but then you can get the numbers from the legitimate studies themselves. ;)

In reading this abortion debate stuff I came to a bit of a conclusion. Let's take for a moment the idea that pro-life wins and abortions are outlawed. Where might it lead? Well, here's my thoughts.

If a miscarrige is simply an abortion done by the women's body unconciously, then they're still abortions, right? About 25% of women have miscarriges naturally, and so they're breaking the law, no? That's 25% of women in jail right there.

If abortion is outlawed on the premise that the fetus, and embryo, are persons, then we have just set precident that such componant parts to an adult human are persons too, right? That would mean that the sperm and egg componants are also holders of personhood too, right? So masturbation ending in ejaculation for men would be illegal as abortion. Some studies say that 95% of men have masturbated in their life, so there goes 95% of the male population in jail right there.

But we're forgetting the women. As part of the menstrual cycle women ovulate, and as part of ovulation, they release the egg. This happens in all women, several times a year, for a good chunk of their life. And if they don't concieve, the egg is discarded, an abortion as the egg has been given personhood, right? We've just imprisoned all women capable of giving birth.

Great, now we have the 5% of men left who don't masturbate to live and propogate the species, right? It seems to me then, that "pro-choice" is more pro-destroy-the-species.

Now if you've read all of that and are comming up with the argument that I have simply extended it into a snowball argument, you're right. And if you post that without reading this, I'll ignore you for not reading the entire thing through. Because, I have highlighted something very specific, it's a matter of where you define personhood and what precident you set with it. Where do you draw the line at personhood? If it's genetic relation to a human, then the above is a very logical course of action. If it's the formation of the brain and the ability to feel pain, then you're looking at 20-30 weeks into pregnancy, leaving 20-30 weeks of abortion time left without a "person". The limits you must set are not black and white, not an issue of women's or fetus rights, they're an issue practicality and reality. We can't actually set precidence for something that can spiral us into doom, and as both options actually have that potential, we need a middle ground, where we can balance how we go down, and hopefully thus survive.

Yeah Neo, I remember actually reading about the "point of viability" as defined in Roe v. Wade, which i think was 1 in 2, but I don't remember entirely.

Thats where this whole Viability thing came from anyway, was Roe V Wade. considering there wasn't really a national policy on abortion before Roe V Wade, I'de think that Lifers would be appreciative of being allowed the logical limit of their reasoning. Granted, the wording of the case needs some work, but in the long run, it is probably the best compromise available.

You could have your own My little pony TV show.

Considering that we can store cells in deep-freeze and not irreversibly denature their proteins, and we're good at implanting zygotes, it's not too much of a long shot to do the same with embryos.

The main problem that would need to be addressed is keeping the embryo viable while being removed and transported to deep freeze. That said, it would probably be necessary to synthesize a nutrient bath for the transport.

Of course, there is always the possibility that the embryo won't, er, rather, will be completely denatured by the freezing process, and all that'll be recovered is a bloody mess...

Yeah Neo, I remember actually reading about the "point of viability" as defined in Roe v. Wade, which i think was 1 in 2, but I don't remember entirely.

Thats where this whole Viability thing came from anyway, was Roe V Wade. considering there wasn't really a national policy on abortion before Roe V Wade, I'de think that Lifers would be appreciative of being allowed the logical limit of their reasoning. Granted, the wording of the case needs some work, but in the long run, it is probably the best compromise available.

well sorta. Roe basically set up a trimester system (no restriction in first, some restriction in second, whatever restriction states want in third), but Casey got rid of that, promoting a more amorphous "viability" standard.

Especially considering that with the probable course of cloning technology over the next 50 years, any glob of spit CAN become a human.

Worrying about what a fetus might be one day is sort of like convicting a camper of arson- because the wood he used in the campfire might have been part of someone's home one day.

Imagine the problems that will bring up. "If you didn't want to reproduce, you should have bought self-sealing envelopes instead of licking them!"

One little note to anybody thinking I'm a pro-life nutter,

I don't support making abortion illegal, because, like most other prohibitions, banning something doesn't make it go away. Rather, I think it's much more effective in the long run to convince people on an individual basis that abortion is not the right decision.

Top-down authoritarianism (you will not smoke, ever!!!) destroys liberty. Enough said...

well, once human cloning becomes viable, people will definately accept it, simply because it will allow people to live for an incredibly long period of time. (Heart failure? Here's a new one. Cancer in your blood? Not in this body!) the debate will probably be about the rights of DNA, preventing people using your DNA without concent and other such things.

well, once human cloning becomes viable, people will definately accept it, simply because it will allow people to live for an incredibly long period of time. (Heart failure? Here's a new one. Cancer in your blood? Not in this body!) the debate will probably be about the rights of DNA, preventing people using your DNA without concent and other such things.

Already happening. At the University I attend, they're implanting working rat hearts grown from the same rat's vascular tissue. Why I love biology!

The whole hammer/face analogy works both ways I'm afraid and it would sound something like this.
"You're right to dictate who I can kill ends where my vagina begins . . . literally."
The reason abortion isn't illegal is because it would open a can of worms as to what the government and lawmakers can tell a person to do when concerning their persons. If we start telling women they can't chose whether or not to have a baby where would it end? Forced birth control? Forced sterilization for those who are deemed unfit to reproduce? The list goes on and on.
At the end of the day the woman, and by extension all of America's people, must be free to do whatever they like to their own person. It is one of those inherent rights that isn't exactly spelled out in the constitution but is more or less directly inferred by the prose and grammar of the document.

Concerning the title of murder when speaking on abortion well that requires knowledge of something that is intrinsically intangible and more of a philosophical question concerning a scientific process.
You can't say without a shadow of doubt that the two week old, three week old, or three month old fetus has awareness, a consciousness, or the ability to interpret pain nor even the impending end of it's short life.
No one can know these things though many will tell you they do know and this knowing is based on a sense of moral and ethics they feel are part of us all.
This doesn't consitute real knowledge but more of a gut feeling. In the abscence of this knowledge you cannot call abortion's murder for murder is the act of extinguishing a conscious human life.

Furthermore the whole debate of pro-life and pro-choice begs the question why is it anyone elses business what a woman does with her unborn fetus? It's not your womb, your child, your fetus it doesn't concern you so live and let live, or live and let abort rather.

:headbang:

why cant it be both a woman's rights issue AND a fetal rights issue?

Because fetuses have no rights. Nor do embryos. You have to be born to have rights.

OMG EBIL CHRITIAN!!!!11 Wait....I can't say that say that? *Grumbles* Then what is the point of this thread!? If a person can't blame things on the ebil christian's11! then this world is going down the drain..

OMG EBIL CHRITIAN!!!!11 Wait....I can't say that say that? *Grumbles* Then what is the point of this thread!? If a person can't blame things on the ebil christian's11! then this world is going down the drain..

Did you have anything substantive to add?

Because fetuses have no rights. Nor do embryos. You have to be born to have rights.

the OP didnt respond to this. that would have been a follow up point.

Errr... yes it is, it is 100% genetically human.

So is my finger. My finger is 100% genetically human (barring Chimerism, of which there have been only 40 reported human cases according to wikipedia) but it is not a human life. A fetus is 100% genetically human but it is not a human life.

Why don't we just be honest and call abortion infanticide.

Because we can't do both?

Before you all go "OMG EBIL CHRISTIAN," let me just say that I am a liberal Atheist (Anti-death penalty, pro gay marriage, and until recently pro-choice.) And before you go, "OMG ANOTHER ABORTION THREAD", no one made you click this (sorry if they did, then you can bitch if you want). Please leave if you are bored or are not interested in what i have to say, or have nothing constructive to add to the debate.

What I fail to see, as I am sure you have gathered from the title, is how abortion is a woman's rights issue. It seems to be more of a fetus-rights issue.

The fact is, while the woman's body is involved, it would seem to me that the fetus' body is slightly more involved, namely that it is being killed. Your right to swing a hammer ends where my face begins, literally in this case. Unless a woman's life is in danger, I don't see any reason to have an abortion that justifies killing a baby. The fact that you got drunk one night and had unprotected sex does NOT entitle you to kill another person. Would it mess up your life? Damn, that sucks. You can't end his. Abortion isn't murder, because it is legal, but it is killing another person. Does anyone in here deny this? And is killing another person not immoral?

"BUT OMG, LIKE, ITS NOT BORN, SO, LIKE, IT DOESN'T HAVE RIGHTS LOL!!1!!"

Wow. Ok, so is it ok to torture the baby? No? So the only right it doesn't have is to life? Can someone explain this to me? Call me stupid (I know one of you clever, articulate debaters will say "OK YOUR STUPID LOL"), but I don't follow your logic here. Kindly explain.

Is it ok to kill the baby 30 seconds before it is born? But not 30 seconds later? Where do you draw the line?

You know what? If you don't want it, give it up for adoption. I have talked to several adopted people, and they have all told me that they would rather have been adopted than aborted. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but I'm confident you will find similar sentiments among other adopted people. It's not your choice to decide if other people die. You have no right to kill anyone, except in self defense. (which is why if a woman's health is in danger, abortion is fine).

And you know what else?
If your not prepared to deal with the consequences of an action, don't do the action. "OMG TEENS ARE GOING TO HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX LOL!!!" (Use a condom, pill, whatever.) Ya, well teens are going to have babies then too. And its going to fuck up their lives. A leads to B. Tough cookies. I can't condone killing people because you want to have fun. Actions have consequences.


I'm not pro-choice if the choice is between death and life. Life is the only choice.

Btw, don't answer any rhetorical question in here thinking your funny.

Just wondering, what inspired this change in your thought? You said at once you were pro-choice.

Anyway, as said by so many others, until it has a functioning brain, is aware of its surroundings, and can survive without a host, it's a parasite, nothing more, nothing less.

Using your argument and thought, you shouldn't pick tics off of your body, use medication to get rid of intestinal worms, or kill germs, they feed off of you and in some cases are attached to your body.

The risk of getting them is the same as getting pregnant with protection. Again, using your thought process, if you eat, go for a walk, or just go outside, you shouldn't get rid of them because it was the your choice to eat, take a walk, or go outside.

Also, evidence shows a fetus feels no pain before the third trimester. So, I think that's where the line is drawn, at the third trimester. A woman's body is her own, it's not like she rents it like an apartment, she has the right to choose what she thinks is best for her.

Did you have anything substantive to add?

Not any more than most of the other people.

So is my finger. My finger is 100% genetically human (barring Chimerism, of which there have been only 40 reported human cases according to wikipedia) but it is not a human life. A fetus is 100% genetically human but it is not a human life.

:headbang:

Yes it is a human life. That was the fucking point.

:headbang:

Yes it is a human life. That was the fucking point.

Let us, just to avoid an endless argument, distinguish between human life and human Life.
human life = things with human DNA that are alive.
human Life = person.

Is an embryo a human life ? Yes.
Is an embryo a human Life ? That is debated.

Is an embryo a human Life ? That is debated.Even if an embryo is in fact a human Life, why is there a discussion about whether it is moral to take its life? There have always been circumstances that allow taking human lives.

Its a eugenics issue as much as anything else. More teen pregnancies means more welfare recipients, fewer intelligent workers and more domestic issues. More inner citiy pregnancies means more criminals and urban poor. Abortion makes a lot of sense from this standpoint. More drug addict mothers, more defective children.
Fetuses should not have rights because they are not conscious creatures. A human shows signs of being a self aware entity at about 3 months AFTER birth at the earliest. Killing a fetus is no different than killing any animal until this point. (Yes, I am pro-post partem abortion) Our sympathy and need to anthromorphize everything we see is causing this issue. Also, the ability to abort defective fetuses will aid in reducing our strained medical care system.
(Sorry about the tasteless cool smiley. I don't know how it got there or how to delete it.)

Even if an embryo is in fact a human Life, why is there a discussion about whether it is moral to take its life? There have always been circumstances that allow taking human lives.

But not in every circumstance. Just walking up to your neighbour and putting a bullet in his head for no reason is somewhat frowned upon for instance. Our society has decided that human Life has quite a bit of intrinsic value.

So what the pro-life side has to accomplish is to provide decent arguments why an embryo or fetus is in fact a person/human Life with that intrinsic value or provide other reasons that make it worthy of protection, regardless of the wishes of the mother.

Sofar they have failed. But hey - maybe in their next post...

OMG EBIL CHRITIAN!!!!11 Wait....I can't say that say that? *Grumbles* Then what is the point of this thread!? If a person can't blame things on the ebil christian's11! then this world is going down the drain..
Do you have to try to make every god damn thread about your persecution complex? It really gets old.

Did you have anything substantive to add?

Does he ever?

Do you have to try to make every god damn thread about your persecution complex? It really gets old.



Does he ever?



As Henry Kissinger said, its not paranoia when everyone really is out to get you.

But not in every circumstance. Just walking up to your neighbour and putting a bullet in his head for no reason is somewhat frowned upon for instance. Our society has decided that human Life has quite a bit of intrinsic value.


Indeed. But if your neighbor is using your body against your will and the only way to stop him is to kill him?

So what the pro-life side has to accomplish is to provide decent arguments why an embryo or fetus is in fact a person/human Life with that intrinsic value or provide other reasons that make it worthy of protection, regardless of the wishes of the mother.

Sofar they have failed. But hey - maybe in their next post...

Thing is, even if we assume that an embryo has all the same rights as a human person, it still would not have the right to use the woman's body against her will. She would still have the right to "evict" it, as it were.

Well, as a woman, I think my ability to control my body and the process of turning a teeny ball of cells (that might turn into anything, at least in the first couple of weeks) into a living human being, by the courtesy of my own fucking body, is pretty damn important.

Even if an embryo is in fact a human Life, why is there a discussion about whether it is moral to take its life? There have always been circumstances that allow taking human lives.

Just because there are circumstances doesn't make it right. I belive the only times it is right to kill are in self defense, in defense of others that cannot defend themselves, and executing violent criminals.

Indeed. But if your neighbor is using your body against your will and the only way to stop him is to kill him?

That is the next debate step - and a lot trickier. Because in this comparison you are quite certain that the neighbour will stop using your body in roughly 9 months time without you needing to kill him.

What is worth more - you being unabused or his life ? People will be even more divided there than at the issue of person vs clump of cells.

That is the next debate step - and a lot trickier. Because in this comparison you are quite certain that the neighbour will stop using your body in roughly 9 months time without you needing to kill him.

What is worth more - you being unabused or his life ? People will be even more divided there than at the issue of person vs clump of cells.

I don't see how it's any trickier...
Slavery is ok if its only for 9 months?

Its a eugenics issue as much as anything else. More teen pregnancies means more welfare recipients, fewer intelligent workers and more domestic issues. More inner citiy pregnancies means more criminals and urban poor. Abortion makes a lot of sense from this standpoint. More drug addict mothers, more defective children.
Fetuses should not have rights because they are not conscious creatures. A human shows signs of being a self aware entity at about 3 months AFTER birth at the earliest. Killing a fetus is no different than killing any animal until this point. (Yes, I am pro-post partem abortion) Our sympathy and need to anthromorphize everything we see is causing this issue. Also, the ability to abort defective fetuses will aid in reducing our strained medical care system.
(Sorry about the tasteless cool smiley. I don't know how it got there or how to delete it.)

So what your saying is solve our problems by killing off certain groups in this case babies and fetuses. Kinda reminds of a little thing called the holocaust. Ya know where this one group (Nazis) thought they were better then jews and that jews caused all the problems. They kinda killed 6 million jews. And that didn't do a thing for their problems. Just created more. Same type of thing happened in Rwanda. So yeah lets just going around killing babies. that will solve all of our problems. This whole line of thought makes me sick

I don't see how it's any trickier...
Slavery is ok if its only for 9 months?

If it is a choice between slavery for 9 months or killing the enslaver ?
Some might say yes. I wouldn't, but I would not wish to feed the ones that would.

But the fetus is also a separate life.


But it's not too difficult to call something with a functioning brain and heart a person, and often a fetus will have this when it is aborted.

Well lets see shall we:

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html



And at 9 weeks, does the fetus have a brain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus



So basically, the brain and heart is present, but the fetus is not yet viable and is dependent on the mother to survive. Take from this what you will, I just thought I would add some hard facts.

Um. A vague sentence in a wikipedia article is hardly "hard facts."

Let's look at some real facts. Even by your own source, over 50% of abortions occur in the first 9 weeks of pregnancy and about 90% occur within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. About 1% of abortions occur at 20 weeks or more and these are medically necessary. These numbers are consistent with those from the Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm).

As for when a fetus has a functioning brain, let's check a more reliable and more precise source:

Development of the fetal neocortex begins at 8 weeks gestation, and by 20 weeks each cortex has a full complement of 109 neurons.34 The dendritic processes of the cortical neurons undergo profuse arborizations and develop synaptic targets for the incoming thalamocortical fibers and intracortical connections.35,36 The timing of the thalamocortical connection is of crucial importance for cortical perception, since most sensory pathways to the neocortex have synapses in the thalamus. Studies of primate and human fetuses have shown that afferent neurons in the thalamus produce axons that arrive in the cerebrum before mid-gestation. These fibers then "wait" just below the neocortex until migration and dendritic arborization of cortical neurons are complete and finally establish synaptic connections between 20 and 24 weeks of gestation (Fig. 1).36-38

Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and a neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, studies of cerebral metabolism, and the behavioral development of neonates. First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.39 By 30 weeks, the distinction between wakefulness and sleep can be made on the basis of electroencephalo- graphic patterns.39,40 Cortical components of visual and auditory evoked potentials have been recorded in preterm babies (born earlier than 30 weeks of gestation),40,41 whereas olfactory and tactile stimuli may also cause detectable changes in electroencephalograms of neonates.40,42 Second, in vivo measurements of cerebral glucose utilization have shown that maximal metabolic activity in located in sensory areas of the brain in neonates (the sensorimotor cortex, thalamus, and mid brain- brain-stem regions), further suggesting the functional maturity of these regions.43 Third, several forms of behavior imply cortical function during fetal life. Well-defined periods of quiet sleep, active sleep, and wakefulness occur in utero beginning at 28 weeks of gestation.44 In addition to the specific behavioral responses to pain described below, preterm and full-term babies have various cognitive, coordinative, and associative capabilities in response to visual and auditory stimuli, leaving no doubt about the presence of cortical function.45

--K.J.S. Anand and P.R. Hickey, Pain and its effects on the human neonate and fetus (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/), THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Volume 317, Number 21: Pages 1321-1329, 19 November 1987 (emphasis added)


So, no, most abortions don't involve a fetus at all and those that do are still well before there is any brain function.

That is the next debate step - and a lot trickier. Because in this comparison you are quite certain that the neighbour will stop using your body in roughly 9 months time without you needing to kill him.

....having permanently and irreversibly changed my body, leaving me at greater risk for a number of health issues.

There are those who like to characterize pregnancy as nothing but a vague inconvenience for 9 months, but that hardly encompasses it.

Besides, my neighbor doesn't have the right to use my body against my will for 5 minutes. He definitely doesn't have that right for 9 months.

Just because there are circumstances doesn't make it right. I belive the only times it is right to kill are in self defense, in defense of others that cannot defend themselves, and executing violent criminals.What does this have to do with right and wrong?

Abortion.

Good for food supplies.

That's the only plus.

If the woman doesn't want it there? Yes.



No, it wasn't. It was the woman's choice to have sex.



Yes. Even if she agreed beforehand, she is free at any point to change her mind about her own body.

It's a separate and sentient life- it's not her body.

I don't know what kind of sadist can even use that anatomically incorrect argument, but you have got to know that it's utter bull shit.


Also, no.

abortion = murder, whichever way you look at it

It's a separate and sentient life- it's not her body.

No, the fetus isn't (though it's hardly "sentient" in the periods during which the vast majority of abortions happen). Who said anything about the fetus? Whatever the nature of the fetus, she has the right to exercise sovereignty over her body.

It's a separate and sentient life- it's not her body.

Her body is her body. If another entity wants to use it, it needs her permission.

Meanwhile, it is not sentient during the period of time in which elective abortions are legal.

abortion = murder, whichever way you look at it

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. Opinion =/= fact.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true. Opinion =/= fact.

since when was killing something living not murder?

abortion = murder, whichever way you look at it

The law disagrees. So do most people that think a person is more than a clump of human cells.

since when was killing something living not murder?

Since.. always ?
Perhaps you should look up what murder is.

abortion = murder, whichever way you look at it

"There are precious few at ease
With moral ambiguities
So we act as though they don't exist"

((kudos to anyone who recognizes the song))

The law disagrees. So do most people that think a person is more than a clump of human cells.

The human race has reached a new low

That is the next debate step - and a lot trickier. Because in this comparison you are quite certain that the neighbour will stop using your body in roughly 9 months time without you needing to kill him.

What is worth more - you being unabused or his life ? People will be even more divided there than at the issue of person vs clump of cells.

so i can keep slaves as long as i free them after 9 mouths! yea i clam you as my first slave, make me some pie!

Edit: sorry points been made

since when was killing something living not murder?

- taking antibiotics
- hunting
- harvesting crops
- bug spray
- research
- self-defense

Shall I go on?

The human race has reached a new low

Why ? Because it knows what murder is while you do not ?

since when was killing something living not murder?

For the last fucking time, AN EMBRYO IS NOT A PERSON!!!! Until it is viable outside the womb (without a NICU), neither is a fetus. They are potential people, who become people by being parasites inside a woman's body. If a woman chooses not to have a child, it's NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

- taking antibiotics
- hunting
- harvesting crops
- bug spray
- research
- self-defense

Shall I go on?

Very well, keep on killing. Not that it bothers me. Sometimes I simply wonder, why do we have to kill our own kind? Perhaps I am wasting my time

Whatever the nature of the fetus, she has the right to exercise sovereignty over her body.

At the expense of another being's? It is remarkably cold-hearted to strip a human of their chance to grow and develop and live for another's economic convenience.

"There are precious few at ease
With moral ambiguities
So we act as though they don't exist"

((kudos to anyone who recognizes the song))

Wicked! One of my very favorite musicals! And I <3 Joel Grey.

I had to sing the next verse to get the name of the song - it's "Wonderful"

so i can keep slaves as long as i free them after 9 mouths! yea i clam you as my first slave, make me some pie!

I already sad that *I* do not agree. I find it amazing that so many people cannot grasp the concept of someone being able to see how other people think.
Come on people. Start thinking like "the enemy".

Very well, keep on killing. Not that it bothers me. Sometimes I simply wonder, why do we have to kill our own kind? Perhaps I am wasting my time

You are. It would be better spent educating yourself on the topic and listening to what others have to say.

THEN form your own opinion, backed by reasoning and facts instead of incorrect claims.

For the last fucking time, AN EMBRYO IS NOT A PERSON!!!! Until it is viable outside the womb (without a NICU), neither is a fetus. They are potential people, who become people by being parasites inside a woman's body. If a woman chooses not to have a child, it's NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

please dont flame

(I know one of you clever, articulate debaters will say "OK YOUR STUPID LOL")

OK YOUR STUPID LOL

I didn't see that anyone else posted it, so I thought I'd go ahead and get it out of the way. Don't want to disappoint, yeah?

Furthermore, your exception for rape is hypocritical. Does being raped make it legal for you to murder somebody? No.

Less hypocrisy, more compromise.

Very well, keep on killing. Not that it bothers me. Sometimes I simply wonder, why do we have to kill our own kind? Perhaps I am wasting my time

When we scientifically prove them not to be human, then we can do whatever we want to them. Same with blacks(slavery) and Jews(holocaust). I love humanity.

please dont flame

I'm sorry, but that's not flaming. That's me losing my temper because you cannot grasp the idea of bodily autonomy or the definition of murder. If I were to call you stupid, retardo asshat, then that would be flaming. But I'm not. Ergo, you cannot grasp the concept of flaming, either.

You are. It would be better spent educating yourself on the topic and listening to what others have to say.

THEN form your own opinion, backed by reasoning instead of incorrect claims.

Thanks alot. Thanks for making me feel great. Thanks for being the root of all evil. When you have finished killing, maybe then you will realise what you are really doing. Only when the last tree has been felled, only when the last fish has been caught, only when the last river has been poisoned, only then will you realise that money cannot be eaten. Cut down our forests to feed your machines...

abortion = murder, whichever way you look at it

cheese = meat
Jesus = God
my penis= 10' inches

Sorry thought we were saying false statements, if it was that simple there would not be a debate about it.
P.s My penis is of course bigger 10 niches
Honest *nearly sincere face*

Thanks alot. Thanks for making me feel great. Thanks for being the root of all evil. When you have finished killing, maybe then you will realise what you are really doing. Only when the last tree has been felled, only when the last fish has been caught, only when the last river has been poisoned, only then will you realise that money cannot be eaten. Cut down our forests to feed your machines...

Okay, I'm taking antibiotics for a sinus infection. Do those bacteria have the absolute right to disrupt my life and force me to miss classes? Keeping in mind that these are tiny, mindless, animals and I am a fully formed human being.

Okay, I'm taking antibiotics for a sinus infection. Do those bacteria have the absolute right to disrupt my life and force me to miss classes? Keeping in mind that these are tiny, mindless, animals and I am a fully formed human being.

oh well you miss classes, life goes on. Selfishness will be mans downfall.

The human race has reached a new low

Can you actually provide facts or a well thought out argument or are you going to bore us to death with your one line quips?

I already sad that *I* do not agree. I find it amazing that so many people cannot grasp the concept of someone being able to see how other people think.
Come on people. Start thinking like "the enemy".
But i want my slave made pie
*pokes with stick*
where my pie?

Can you actually provide facts or a well thought out argument or are you going to bore us to death with your one line quips?

once you have these never-ending facts then what will you do with them?

oh well you miss classes, life goes on. Selfishness will be mans downfall.

Do you know what an untreated sinus infection can do? It can spread to the brain and cause come and death. Why do bacteria that do nothing but cause human misery have a greater right to live than humans?

And yes, missing class is a big deal to those of us who are actually trying to better ourselves with an education.

money cannot be eaten.

Strictly speaking, yes it can.

It just doesn't taste very good, has poor nutritional value, and technically is a (US) federal crime (destruction of money and whatnot).










Trees are overrated.

Is it ok to kill the baby 30 seconds before it is born? But not 30 seconds later? Where do you draw the line?
I'd draw the line at 6 weeks into pregnancy. If the woman/girl is serious about abortion, she should find time to do it before bones develop (which is when the embryo becomes a fetus, at least by definition. That happens at about 8 weeks).

Do you know what an untreated sinus infection can do? It can spread to the brain and cause come and death. Why do bacteria that do nothing but cause human misery have a greater right to live than humans?

I never said anything about anyones rights being higher than someone elses. I said we should stop killing everything, including ourselves

And if we die due to unrelated causes, e.g infection, then so be it, some other people will have a chance at life

oh well you miss classes, life goes on. Selfishness will be mans downfall.

I suggest you stop eating any food whatsoever, since no matter the food you eat (including vegetables and such), it's at the cost of some other life. Particularly if you consider plant-life relevant, but even if you do not.

Why don't we just be honest and call abortion infanticide.

Because words actually MEAN something, and an embryo or a fetus is NOT AN INFANT.

once you have these never-ending facts then what will you do with them?
I know this is kind of a weird venue, so let me explain. This is a debate forum and what we do is debate. You need facts from reputable sources and well thought out, concise arguments. You counter other people's arguments with facts from reputable soruces or well thought out counter-arguments.


Otherwise you are just trolling. Poorly I might add.

I never said anything about anyones rights being higher than someone elses. I said we should stop killing everything, including ourselves

Okay, you have just proved yourself immune to logic based attacks. I'm not feeding the troll anymore.

I know this is kind of a weird venue, so let me explain. This is a debate forum and what we do is debate. You need facts from reputable sources and well thought out concise arguments. You counter other people's arguments with facts from reputable soruces or well thought out counter-arguments.


Otherwise you are just trolling. Poorly I might add.

Im clearly not wanted so I shall leave

At the expense of another being's?

Yes.

This is not actually so radical an idea. People obscure the nature of the choice by presenting the matter as two independent elements: the fetus's life or the woman's bodily autonomy. But if we instead recognize that the life we guarantee for the fetus is necessarily at the expense of the woman's autonomy, things change.

I value my life highly, and I would defend myself against anyone who tried to kill me. But if preserving my life required forcing another to sacrifice control over her body for my sake, then I would never insist on it.

:headbang:

Yes it is a human life. That was the fucking point.

So you're claiming my finger is a human life? Does my finger have the same rights you have?

If it is a choice between slavery for 9 months or killing the enslaver ?

You forgot about the part where you hang the slaving fuck up as warning to other slavers. I'm sure you can guess my choice.

That is the next debate step - and a lot trickier. Because in this comparison you are quite certain that the neighbour will stop using your body in roughly 9 months time without you needing to kill him.

What is worth more - you being unabused or his life ? People will be even more divided there than at the issue of person vs clump of cells.

You know what? I don't CARE when he chooses to stop using me, *I* choose not to be used. Nine SECONDS is all I'd wait before putting, as my students would say, a cap in his ass. Where does using someone against his or her will become appropriate? It doesn't.

Is this not why there are restraining orders and womens' shelters -- to stop their being used?

At the expense of another being's? It is remarkably cold-hearted to strip a human of their chance to grow and develop and live for another's economic convenience.

Ah, another person who has absolutely no idea what is entailed in pregnancy.


Wicked! One of my very favorite musicals! And I <3 Joel Grey.

I had to sing the next verse to get the name of the song - it's "Wonderful"

:fluffle:

Kudos to Kbrook!


I never said anything about anyones rights being higher than someone elses. I said we should stop killing everything, including ourselves

You'll have to take medications to completely suppress your immune system, so that your body will stop killing things.

So what your saying is solve our problems by killing off certain groups in this case babies and fetuses. Kinda reminds of a little thing called the holocaust. Ya know where this one group (Nazis) thought they were better then jews and that jews caused all the problems. They kinda killed 6 million jews. And that didn't do a thing for their problems. Just created more. Same type of thing happened in Rwanda. So yeah lets just going around killing babies. that will solve all of our problems. This whole line of thought makes me sick

Someone always has to bring up the Nazis and the holocaust no matter how idiotically inappropriate the comparison is.

Yes.

This is not actually so radical an idea. People obscure the nature of the choice by presenting the matter as two independent elements: the fetus's life or the woman's bodily autonomy. But if we instead recognize that the life we guarantee for the fetus is necessarily at the expense of the woman's autonomy, things change.

Things don't change. A) Getting pregnant was the choice of the woman, when she decided not to abstain, not timing correctly, not to use a condom (or ask her man to), and not to use the morning after pill. She's in the situation because she allowed herself to get into it. B) The loss of autonomy is for 9 months, not forever. I lose 4 years of my autonomy after college because I decided to do ROTC. Big whoop. C) She can easily put the child up for adoption, so she's not stuck with the child forever. Overall, to protect the life of the fetus, only 9 months of discomfort are required on the part of the woman.

I value my life highly, and I would defend myself against anyone who tried to kill me. But if preserving my life required forcing another to sacrifice control over her body for my sake, then I would never insist on it.

You wouldn't, but your hardly representative of all fetuses, are you?

Someone always has to bring up the Nazis and the holocaust no matter how idiotically inappropriate the comparison is.

No, it's not. The underlying philosophy behind both is that there is a group of people who are deemed subhumans so that their lives need not be respected.

EDIT: Simply out of curiousity, how is it you are perpetually offline???

The human race has reached a new low

As has, apparently, basic high school biology education retention.

Someone always has to bring up the Nazis and the holocaust no matter how idiotically inappropriate the comparison is.


It ifts here. The nazis wanted to kill "undesirables" to solve their problems. This guy wants people to kill babies to solve all of our problems. I see the conection. He mentioned Eugenics. That is one of the major Prinicples of Nazism. Just look at the Nuremberg Laws first made in 1935.

It ifts here. The nazis wanted to kill "undesirables" to solve their problems. This guy wants people to kill babies to solve all of our problems. I see the conection. He mentioned Eugenics. That is one of the major Prinicples of Nazism. Just look at the Nuremberg Laws first made in 1935.

Yes, but that's unique to his rather twisted view of the world.

So, abortion =/= Nazism.

Abortion isn't murder, because it is legal, but it is killing another person. Does anyone in here deny this? And is killing another person not immoral?

this is my problem with the argument, you're kind of saying that intentionally taking a life is not really murder (even though thats the definition of murder) if the goverment says its not.

Personally I think its not alive until it has a brain, Im not sure when that is but I think it's quite early?
what if you find out that it will have some terrible genetic disorder? do you think this would change it? obviously you would not go around killing people you see with these disorders but would you stop a child having to go through life with them?

Thanks alot. Thanks for making me feel great. Thanks for being the root of all evil. When you have finished killing, maybe then you will realise what you are really doing. Only when the last tree has been felled, only when the last fish has been caught, only when the last river has been poisoned, only then will you realise that money cannot be eaten. Cut down our forests to feed your machines...

Considering that you are using several machines to place this bit of trollery on the forum, don't you think you're being a wee bit hypocritical?

Or have you skipped the computer, monitor, mouse, modem, phone line/cable connection, energy production and the various manufacturing processes that pollute the environment and poison it when you toss these components away?

I agree totally! Abortion is down right wron if the woman's body is NOT in danger then she should carry the child to full term. That child did not ask for you and your significant other to have sex in other words that child did not ask to be born, and if you don't won't kids don't have dsex that simple, wrap it up do something but don't kill an innocent life because of a stupid decision that you made.

No, it's not. The underlying philosophy behind both is that there is a group of people who are deemed subhumans so that their lives need not be respected.

Fail. Abortions would have to be carried out just because they are embryos, and with an eye toward eliminating all embryos, for the comparison to actually be apt.

All it is is a cheap appeal to emotion.

Abortions would have to be carried out just because they are embryos, and with an eye toward eliminating all embryos, for the comparison to actually be apt.
.

True. The enslavement of the blacks is a better comparison.

Things don't change. A) Getting pregnant was the choice of the woman, when she decided not to abstain, not timing correctly, not to use a condom (or ask her man to), and not to use the morning after pill. She's in the situation because she allowed herself to get into it.

No. That's not how freedom works.

First, the mere act of consenting to sex does not constitute consent to PREGNANCY. It only constitutes consent to SEX. It doesn't matter how careless she was; it still wasn't consent. The two are not logically equivalent.

Second, it doesn't matter. She has the right to change her mind regarding her own body.

B) The loss of autonomy is for 9 months, not forever.

What of it?

C) She can easily put the child up for adoption, so she's not stuck with the child forever.

So? I have said nothing about her autonomy post-birth.

Overall, to protect the life of the fetus, only 9 months of discomfort are required on the part of the woman.

So? She must still not be required to endure it.

Things don't change. A) Getting pregnant was the choice of the woman, when she decided not to abstain, not timing correctly, not to use a condom (or ask her man to), and not to use the morning after pill. She's in the situation because she allowed herself to get into it.

Sort of like how getting in an accident is the choice of anyone who chooses to drive?

B) The loss of autonomy is for 9 months, not forever. I lose 4 years of my autonomy after college because I decided to do ROTC. Big whoop.

Loss of autonomy is loss of autonomy.

Care to tell us how your body was used against your will for 4 years?

C) She can easily put the child up for adoption, so she's not stuck with the child forever. Overall, to protect the life of the fetus, only 9 months of discomfort are required on the part of the woman.

"Only 9 months of discomfort," eh?

Why is that the anti-choice types never seem to have any understanding of what is entailed in pregnancy?

Even if we disregard the complications that can occur during pregnancy (which are numerous), pregnancy makes permanent and irreversible changes to the woman's body. It puts her at risk for numerous health problems later in life.

Choosing to go through a pregnancy isn't a decision for 9 months. It is a decision that will affect your health and life for as long as you continue to live.


Personally I think its not alive until it has a brain, Im not sure when that is but I think it's quite early?

Are we talking about having neurons or having an actual functional brain?

By functional, do we mean basic control or cognitive function?

IIRC, the first neuronal synapses are forming around week 5. Actual neuronal control is first demonstrated between weeks 10-12, when neurons stop firing randomly and actual concerted action can be observed. We don't see the sorts of brainwaves associated with cognitive function until somewhere between weeks 20-22.

I think while it may not consent to pregancy it is no excuse. If you aren't willing to be pregnant then you should be abstinent.

I never said it equaled nazism. Nazism has the anti-semetic, anti-gay, anti-slavic stuff. It is just a similar situation in my opinon. The difference is methods, and those involved. They wouldn't be nazis do this. They would be whatever name they came up with.

If you aren't willing to be pregnant then you should be abstinent.

Why should we accept this rule when methods of abortion exist?

It clearly isn't a necessary connection anymore... so why do you want to force people to abide by it?

At heart, this argument is circular: only on the assumption that abortion is not a legitimate choice could we conclude that having sex necessarily amounts to consenting to the risk of carrying a fetus to term. But the argument that abortion is not a legitimate choice (at least in this instance) depends itself on that conclusion.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about abortions, because the fact of the matter is ABORTIONS HAPPEN. You can be as sanctimonious as you want on either side of the issue, but at the end of the day, no one's going to really care what you think and no one will do anything about it.

Sure, there are politicians who say they're going to pass bills to restrict it and make it illegal, and in some places in the US, they have -- only at local and state levels. However, those are exceptions to the rule, and really all the restrictions say is that any minor who wants an abortion needs to tell a parent/guardian first.

Any politician with half a brain isn't going to do anything about abortion no matter how much s/he soapboxes about it, because any politician with half a brain knows that it's important to KEEP abortion as a hot issue so that they can garner more support from their voting bases with abortion as a rallying point.

Besides, the US tried making abortion illegal once, way back when. It didn't work -- women went out of the country for their abortions or found people who were handy with coat hangers. Even the most ardent pro-lifers agree that it's better for women to undergo invasive surgical procedures at the hands of professionals in sanitary environments rather than with amateurs in dim alleyways, or worse, foreigners with more advanced technology.

No. That's not how freedom works.

First, the mere act of consenting to sex does not constitute consent to PREGNANCY. It only constitutes consent to SEX. It doesn't matter how careless she was; it still wasn't consent. The two are not logically equivalent.

That is how freedom works. The freedom you describe is one in which an individual should be free from being held accountable from his/her actions, which is NOT the way freedom works. If I were to repeatedly get drunk as shit to the point where my liver failed, should I not be forced to pay the medical bill required to get a transplant if I didn't willingly want my liver to fail?

Second, it doesn't matter. She has the right to change her mind regarding her own body.

She has the right to select the fate of her body, but once another individual becomes dependent on her, she can't destroy that individual to undo the consequences of her choice. If I were to give blood and then decide for whatever bizarre reason (blood doping perhaps) that it was my body and I wanted it back, could I take the blood from the individual I gave it to?

You are amking a lot of sense Empire

You are amking a lot of sense Empire

Only if you think the 'proper' role of a woman is to be a baby-making machine.

So far there have been two major arguments, I think, since I checked this thread last. The first being that the discomfort of 9 months is not comparable to the "life" of the "baby" and so a pregnancy must be carried to term. This simply doesn't hold up in our society. You cannot force people to donate kidneys to those who need them, you cannot for people to be "good Samaritans." You may think that the "discomfort" of 9 months is far outweighed by the baby's life, but that does not make it so in our society. By your logic, all citizens must undergo mandatory organ donations, to say the least, as well as a number of other things that our society simply does not, and will likely never, practice. Keep in mind, you're even being given a lot of leeway in this counterargument, but I've attacked the logical consistency rather than the validity of the premises.

The other argument is simply begging the question as has been pointed out. A component of argument why abortion is "wrong" cannot be that abortion is wrong. This shouldn't even need to be mentioned. o.O

That is how freedom works. The freedom you describe is one in which an individual should be free from being held accountable from his/her actions, which is NOT the way freedom works. If I were to repeatedly get drunk as shit to the point where my liver failed, should I not be forced to pay the medical bill required to get a transplant if I didn't willingly want my liver to fail?Your analogy seems to support abortion. If you make a bad choice, you pay a doctor for the medical procedure and the bodily harm is corrected.She has the right to select the fate of her body, but once another individual becomes dependent on her, she can't destroy that individual to undo the consequences of her choice. If I were to give blood and then decide for whatever bizarre reason (blood doping perhaps) that it was my body and I wanted it back, could I take the blood from the individual I gave it to?
It would be more akin to ceasing to give blood halfway through, at the most charitable reading of such an analogy. And no, this is actually acceptable and common. Women aren't sucking the sweet, succulent lifejuices back from the embryo/fetus/fertilized egg when it is aborted, they are removing it (and therefore the intravenous needle used to take blood from them) from their bodies.

That is how freedom works. The freedom you describe is one in which an individual should be free from being held accountable from his/her actions, which is NOT the way freedom works. If I were to repeatedly get drunk as shit to the point where my liver failed, should I not be forced to pay the medical bill required to get a transplant if I didn't willingly want my liver to fail?

No, because the doctor, or in this case healthcare plan, has the right to deny it to you for being such an idiot.

I would think the same would apply to abortions, the doctor has the right to say no if he or she does not want to. Find another doctor. Or do it yourself, it's not hard.

That is how freedom works. The freedom you describe is one in which an individual should be free from being held accountable from his/her actions, which is NOT the way freedom works.

An individual should be held accountable for his or her actions. But what you're doing is forcing consequences on individuals that aren't genuine consequences of the action.

If I were to repeatedly get drunk as shit to the point where my liver failed, should I not be forced to pay the medical bill required to get a transplant if I didn't willingly want my liver to fail?

Incidentally, I don't think you should be. But that is beside the point. The relevant comparison here would be whether or not the pregnant woman should pay for the abortion--not whether or not she should be permitted to have it.

She has the right to select the fate of her body, but once another individual becomes dependent on her, she can't destroy that individual to undo the consequences of her choice.

She cannot enslave someone else to perform the abortion for her. She cannot kill the fetus as such, whatever the benefits to her, if it somehow magically emerged from her body (well, perhaps she can, but only for other unrelated reasons.) But she is free to exercise sovereignty over her body.

You ASSUME that this exercise of sovereignty is illegitimate--as enslaving someone else would be--and thus you conclude that the risk of pregnancy is a necessary element of sex that she has consented to. But you have not yet explained why it is illegitimate.

My right to self-defense does not diminish because I happen to walk through a dangerous area.

If I were to give blood and then decide for whatever bizarre reason (blood doping perhaps) that it was my body and I wanted it back, could I take the blood from the individual I gave it to?

No, because it is no longer your blood.

That is how freedom works. The freedom you describe is one in which an individual should be free from being held accountable from his/her actions, which is NOT the way freedom works.

How is a woman who gets an abortion "free from being held accountable for her actions"? As a consequence of sex, she is pregnant. She must now deal with that pregnancy. The only way she could be said to not deal with it is if she stuck her fingers in her ears and tried to pretend she wasn't pregnant.

She has the right to select the fate of her body,

Ok then, she can choose an abortion.

but once another individual becomes dependent on her, she can't destroy that individual to undo the consequences of her choice.

Oh, I see. The choice to have sex removes her own bodily autonomy and gives another entity control over her.

If I were to give blood and then decide for whatever bizarre reason (blood doping perhaps) that it was my body and I wanted it back, could I take the blood from the individual I gave it to?

No. And the woman cannot take back the nutrients the embryo/fetus has drawn from her body either.

However, suppose you set up a regular blood donation schedule to help a person who needed regular blood donations. You could, at any time, decide to stop donating blood. This is true even if they would die as a consequence of your decision.

So far there have been two major arguments, I think, since I checked this thread last. The first being that the discomfort of 9 months is not comparable to the "life" of the "baby" and so a pregnancy must be carried to term. This simply doesn't hold up in our society. You cannot force people to donate kidneys to those who need them, you cannot for people to be "good Samaritans." You may think that the "discomfort" of 9 months is far outweighed by the baby's life, but that does not make it so in our society.

Not to mention the fact that the argument relies on the ridiculous idea that pregnancy is merely a "discomfort" and that its effects only last for 9 months.

When we scientifically prove them not to be human, then we can do whatever we want to them. Same with blacks(slavery) and Jews(holocaust). I love humanity.

Wait, we scientifically proved that black people and Jewish people aren't human? Did I miss that issue of National Geographic?

Thanks alot. Thanks for making me feel great. Thanks for being the root of all evil. When you have finished killing, maybe then you will realise what you are really doing. Only when the last tree has been felled, only when the last fish has been caught, only when the last river has been poisoned, only then will you realise that money cannot be eaten. Cut down our forests to feed your machines...

Our machines? Do you connect to the internet through a special glowing box made of light and Jesus?

Our machines? Do you connect to the internet through a special glowing box made of light and Jesus?

LMAO

Only if you think the 'proper' role of a woman is to be a baby-making machine.

Why can't they be loooove makin machines too?

Only if you think the 'proper' role of a woman is to be a baby-making machine.

I am not saying that. I am saying people should take responsibilty for their actions. Not just abortion but everything. That is the problem with my generation. Most of us refuse to take responsiblity for our actions. i think it is terrible.

Why can't they be loooove makin machines to?

Because you christians (I recall you being one), keep denying them the right of safe sex and a solution to unwanted pregnancies ;)

Why can't they be loooove makin machines to?

Sorry, I just had to point out the gramatical mistake. It is too in this case not to.

Anyway...

I am not saying that. I am saying people should take responsibilty for their actions. Not just abortion but everything. That is the problem with my generation. Most of us refuse to take responsiblity for our actions. i think it is terrible.

And choosing to have an abortion isn't taking responsibility? I'd pretty much say that it is.

Not taking responsibility would be, as earlier stated, putting your fingers in your ears and pretending you're not pregnant.

That would be bad.

Because you christians (I recall you being one), keep denying them the right of safe sex and a solution to unwanted pregnancies ;)

Don't blame this on christians. If women don't want to get pregnant they should abstain as it is the only way to be sure they don't get pregnant. I don't deny women abortions or safe sex and I am christian. While I don't support these things I am not saying you can do this or anything like that. i am saying I don't belive in this and that I can't stop a woman from doing something. Why is it a woman's right to kill a fetus or baby or whatever you want to call it? Why doesn't the father(he is involved with the creating of the baby) have some say in it? Why does the baby automatically have to die because someone else wants it to die/ What is wrong with adoption? It generally puts babies with families that can give them better lives.

I am not saying that. I am saying people should take responsibilty for their actions. Not just abortion but everything. That is the problem with my generation. Most of us refuse to take responsiblity for our actions. i think it is terrible.

So you're in favor of slavery and or indentured servitude?

Sorry, I just had to point out the gramatical mistake. It is too in this case not to.

Anyway...

I wasn't to sure, thanks.

Why is it a woman's right to kill a fetus or baby or whatever you want to call it?

It is a woman's right to control her own body - to decide what it will and will not be used for.

If she decides that her body will not be used for a continued pregnancy, it means that a pre-viable embryo/fetus will stop developing.

Why doesn't the father(he is involved with the creating of the baby) have some say in it?

Because it isn't in his body. When he gets pregnant, he can decide whether or not to continue the pregnancy.