On the subject of abortion

[Kroger99]

Not personally, no. But I do know that there are such a thing as "pro-abortion" people who do want every pregnant woman to get an abortion.

BTW, I'm still waiting for that proof, Kroger.

I know you are waiting, but I don't think I could provide it to your satisfaction. I can say that I no longer know any Pro-Abortionist either. They now call themselves Pro-Choice. Their stance has not changed... only their title.

We are now going in circles so I will stand down... good day

 

[HannahBanana]

I know you are waiting, but I don't think I could provide it to your satisfaction. I can say that I no longer know any Pro-Abortionist either. They now call themselves Pro-Choice. Their stance has not changed... only their title.

We are now going in circles so I will stand down... good day

In other words, there is no proof to support your point. I figured as much.

 

[DeathMagus]

See.... You agree with those people that I used to debate with that called themselves Pro-Abortion. Those same people now call themselves Pro-Choice. Their views didn't change... just their name.

So you're freely admitting that this point is merely semantic handwaving, and does nothing to address the viewpoint itself? (Hint - it doesn't matter what a group was called in the past. What matters is what a group believes. Since you actually are stating that the pro-choice movement has never changed what it believed, you failed to undermine their position or credibility. You've just pointed out that they had a bad name years ago.)


I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question I posited back on page 4 of this thread:

"If a doctor could somehow simply snip the umbilical cord and remove the fetus, would you be alright with that?"

 

[Kroger99]

So you're freely admitting that this point is merely semantic handwaving, and does nothing to address the viewpoint itself? (Hint - it doesn't matter what a group was called in the past. What matters is what a group believes. Since you actually are stating that the pro-choice movement has never changed what it believed, you failed to undermine their position or credibility. You've just pointed out that they had a bad name years ago.)

yes.... thats almost what I said from the beginning. No need to admit anything.
Okay Okay.. I do admit that I enjoy watching Pro-Choicers freak out when I make the comparison....lol

I'm still waiting for someone to answer the question I posited back on page 4 of this thread:

"If a doctor could somehow simply snip the umbilical cord and remove the fetus, would you be alright with that?"

Yes, but only after the normal delivery

 

[HannahBanana]

yes.... thats almost what I said from the beginning. No need to admit anything.
Okay Okay.. I do admit that I enjoy watching Pro-Choicers freak out when I make the comparison....lol

So you've been trying to annoy us this entire time? Wow, how immature are you?

 

[LightHorseman]

Nope... Don't suck at all. I said that it was "made popular" by Bill Clinton during his 92 presidential campaign.

No... what you said was "That, my dear child was the birth of the political term.... "pro-choice"."

Which is wrong.

So, you made a mistake, because of inadequate research. Be man and admit it, learn from it, and then, in future, you won't sound as ignorant, because it will be one less thing for you to be wrong about.

 

[RobertByers]

Watersmoon 110
Your wrong.
abortion is based in law on the foundation that a foetus is not a person. Otherwise that persons right to life would trump choice. This is never the arguement however as in law the foetus can not be said to be a person as of now.

Your rights ideas are not real life. If we are talking about a human being in the womb and so its being killed. Then other rights have no weight in comparison to this great deed. You could not say other rights give you right to kill people except self defence for a serious threat. Serious and not budding in line.
Your misunderstanding the big story here.

You must either articulate that killing people is fine on issues other then self defence or abortion doesn't kill a person.

 

[cantata]

You must either articulate that killing people is fine on issues other then self defence or abortion doesn't kill a person.

It is self-defence.

Childbirth hurts, you know.

 

[RobertByers]

Izzypop
You said nothing that makes a case against what I said.
The right to life is real. It cancels any right that would contradict it because of the great importance of this right.
You can't say the right to life is a myth. Its the foundation of Gods and your countries law. You not thinking hard enough.

Roe is based on the insistance that the child is not a human being.
Not weighing values.
You have got to do better to persuade ernest honest seekers of justice here.

 

[HannahBanana]

Watersmoon 110
Your wrong.
abortion is based in law on the foundation that a foetus is not a person. Otherwise that persons right to life would trump choice. This is never the arguement however as in law the foetus can not be said to be a person as of now.

Your rights ideas are not real life. If we are talking about a human being in the womb and so its being killed. Then other rights have no weight in comparison to this great deed. You could not say other rights give you right to kill people except self defence for a serious threat. Serious and not budding in line.
Your misunderstanding the big story here.

You must either articulate that killing people is fine on issues other then self defence or abortion doesn't kill a person.

A first-trimester fetus is not a person, since it is not sentient yet. I mean, I doubt you would think of a brain-dead hospital patient on life support as a person, so why think of a fetus as a person, when the fetus has the exact same level of awareness as that hospital patient does?

 

[WatersMoon110]

Your wrong.

For the love of all that is, or isn't, holy! Your means something owned. I do not own a "wrong"! You're means "you are". That is the phrase that you are looking for.

abortion is based in law on the foundation that a foetus is not a person. Otherwise that persons right to life would trump choice. This is never the arguement however as in law the foetus can not be said to be a person as of now.

No. Roe v. Wade was decided on the right to privacy, that abortion is a decision that should only involve a woman/couple and a doctor.

It hasn't been overturned because unborn humans don't have legal rights. But that isn't what it is based on.

Your rights ideas are not real life. If we are talking about a human being in the womb and so its being killed. Then other rights have no weight in comparison to this great deed.

Oh, so your idea that unborn humans should get the right to life, a right you just admitted they don't have legally, counts. But my idea that the right to control one's own body should apply to pregnant women doesn't?

When we are talking about rights that aren't legally given, but implied and interpreted (as both of these right, the right to life, and the right to bodily integrity, are), you don't get to decide which is more important or which applies. We get to use logic to show why we feel a given right should trump another.

You could not say other rights give you right to kill people except self defence for a serious threat. Serious and not budding in line.
Your misunderstanding the big story here.

You must either articulate that killing people is fine on issues other then self defence or abortion doesn't kill a person.

Uh, no. As I've already said, I feel that the right to control one's own body still applies to pregnant women. I feel that this right gives one the ability to deny use of one's body to anyone, including unborn humans, and demand their immediate removal.

Before viability, the only ways to remove an unborn human from a pregnant woman's body are abortion. All of these result in the death of the unborn human. Until there is an immediate alternative (like fetal transplant surgery or artificial wombs), I feel that elective abortion must be legally available as an option for pregnant women.

Can you maybe try using logic to show why this shouldn't be the case? Just saying "your wrong" doesn't work. You have yet to refute my points.

 

[WatersMoon110]

A first-trimester fetus is not a person, since it is not sentient yet. I mean, I doubt you would think of a brain-dead hospital patient on life support as a person, so why think of a fetus as a person, when the fetus has the exact same level of awareness as that hospital patient does?

To be fair, a brain dead person on life support still retains their legal rights (including the right to previously state -- in a written document or to family members -- that they don't want to be kept alive if in their condition).

 

[HannahBanana]

To be fair, a brain dead person on life support still retains their legal rights (including the right to previously state -- in a written document or to family members -- that they don't want to be kept alive if in their condition).

Well then, there goes that analogy, lol. Thanks for the information.

 

[karisma]

Even if embryos/fetuses have a right to life, that right to life cannot be used to violate the rights of others.

It's questionable whether a fetus ought to have the same rights as a born person, but it certainly cannot have more rights than any born person, and as no born person has any rights to another's blood or organs (even to save their life), a fetus cannot either. It's that simple!

 

[KET20]

Even if embryos/fetuses have a right to life, that right to life cannot be used to violate the rights of others.

It's questionable whether a fetus ought to have the same rights as a born person, but it certainly cannot have more rights than any born person, and as no born person has any rights to another's blood or organs (even to save their life), a fetus cannot either. It's that simple!

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[mpok1519]

some people think that the world is overpopulated too. ~shrug~ And some think abortion has a legitimate place within society.

 

[IzzyPop]

Izzypop
You said nothing that makes a case against what I said.
The right to life is real. It cancels any right that would contradict it because of the great importance of this right.
You can't say the right to life is a myth. Its the foundation of Gods and your countries law. You not thinking hard enough.

I don't think I ever said it was a myth. I just don't think it is as all encompassing as you present it. We have the death penalty. We are taking someone's right to life with that. If someone physically assaults me, I can kill them with few or no consequences. That can not be true if there is a universal right to life.

Roe is based on the insistance that the child is not a human being.
Not weighing values.

Not at all. Nobody is saying that a fetus is not human. Some may not consider it a person, but I actually do. I just don't value that person as much as I value the mother. Is that cold? Maybe. But if I am cold enough to make that judgement, do you really think I lose sleep over what various internet posters think about me?

You have got to do better to persuade ernest honest seekers of justice here.

This has nothing to do with justice. If the world were just, only those that wanted to get pregnant would. We would teach everyone about safer sex and the abortion rate would be miniscule.

I'm going to let you in on a secret. Many people, myself included, that support abortion rights find abortion to be morally wrong. I would never advocate that a partner I impregnated get an abortion. I would lobby pretty hard for her to carry the child and either keep it or give it up for adoption. But do you want to know what I find even worse? Me trying to force my choices on someone else. It is neither my business of concern if someone outside of my immediate family and friends gets an abortion. End of story.

 

[RobertByers]

I don't think I ever said it was a myth. I just don't think it is as all encompassing as you present it. We have the death penalty. We are taking someone's right to life with that. If someone physically assaults me, I can kill them with few or no consequences. That can not be true if there is a universal right to life.

Not at all. Nobody is saying that a fetus is not human. Some may not consider it a person, but I actually do. I just don't value that person as much as I value the mother. Is that cold? Maybe. But if I am cold enough to make that judgement, do you really think I lose sleep over what various internet posters think about me?

This has nothing to do with justice. If the world were just, only those that wanted to get pregnant would. We would teach everyone about safer sex and the abortion rate would be miniscule.

I'm going to let you in on a secret. Many people, myself included, that support abortion rights find abortion to be morally wrong. I would never advocate that a partner I impregnated get an abortion. I would lobby pretty hard for her to carry the child and either keep it or give it up for adoption. But do you want to know what I find even worse? Me trying to force my choices on someone else. It is neither my business of concern if someone outside of my immediate family and friends gets an abortion. End of story.

It doesn't matter about your opinion on abortion when you are dismissing the right of [eople to their life.
The right to life is the foundation from God and man on all rights. Its the great moral conclusion of society that all people can not be killed by7 anyone for anything except in the settled principals of society. Self defence and war/punishment. You argue in vain against this. You're wrong about pro-choice motivation. It is so based on the rejection the foetus is a real life human being. Thats why they don't call it a child but use other non-human idenity words. Words matter.

If you agree to the killing of a innocent person then one is a murderer.

The right to life is inalienable and it will destroy abortion in America in time along with the conviction the unborn child is a people like everyone else.

 

[IzzyPop]

It doesn't matter about your opinion on abortion when you are dismissing the right of [eople to their life.
The right to life is the foundation from God and man on all rights. Its the great moral conclusion of society that all people can not be killed by7 anyone for anything except in the settled principals of society. Self defence and war/punishment.

And guess what? We are in the process of settling this one, as well.

You argue in vain against this. You're wrong about pro-choice motivation. It is so based on the rejection the foetus is a real life human being. Thats why they don't call it a child but use other non-human idenity words. Words matter.

Excuse me? You do realize that I am not saying that this is what all pro-choice people believe. I am saying this is I believe and what some people that I have talked to about this believe. So don't go and tell me what I think and what I believe. You are, in essence, calling me a liar. I don't really appreciate that.

If you agree to the killing of a innocent person then one is a murderer.

I disagree. I can see times when the killing of an innocent can be justified. It may not be moral, but it can be justified.

The right to life is inalienable and it will destroy abortion in America in time along with the conviction the unborn child is a people like everyone else.

To be purely pragmatic, the right to life is only 'inalienable' here in wealthy countries. Go play in Africa for a while and tell me how inalienable it is.

 

[Randy89]

Before I ask this question, allow me to make my position on abortion clear: It should be entirely up to the mother whether or not to have an abortion, except in the third trimester, at which point I'm not entirely sure.

Now, here's my question: Why do certain groups of people feel it is in their power to control the lives of others? Why do they feel they have the right to decide what a woman can and cannot do to her own body?

Not intended to flame or troll or anything. Just trying to understand.

Are you against laws? They control the lives of others. Its not just her body she is messing with. It is also the babies. Why should a woman be able to kill her baby before birth but not after?