Pro-Life

[GeoMetro]

That's like saying, if my sister wants to murder my mother, then I'll leave them the ability to make their own choices. This thinking does not take into an account the victum's choices or right to live. We do not have a "choice" to do everything we want if you think about it.

I do not base my argument on religious beliefs. The government's job is to protect it's citizens and those that can not protect themselves (sometimes, even from their own parents/mother). We then have to define if that baby in the womb is in fact a living being/baby or not and if they have basic human rights.

It used to be the parents right to beat their children or kill them after they were born as well, but now we're not so arcaic, or are we?

This.

 

[cantata]

The government's job is to protect it's citizens and those that can not protect themselves (sometimes, even from their own parents/mother). We then have to define if that baby in the womb is in fact a living being/baby or not and if they have basic human rights.

I don't think anyone has a right to use someone else's body as a life support system. As long as a foetus is not viable (i.e. as long as it could not survive outside the womb), it is a woman's choice to decide what happens to her body and how it is used.

Besides, personally I'd rather have been aborted if the other option were to be brought up in care or by a family that didn't want or couldn't afford to keep me. There are worse things than non-existence.

 

[Asimov]

I do not base my argument on religious beliefs. The government's job is to protect it's citizens and those that can not protect themselves (sometimes, even from their own parents/mother). We then have to define if that baby in the womb is in fact a living being/baby or not and if they have basic human rights.

1) The human fetus is living, but it is not an individual in its own right.
2) Even if it were determined that a human fetus had rights, those rights do not include the right to incubate itself inside another person against their will.

It used to be the parents right to beat their children or kill them after they were born as well, but now we're not so arcaic, or are we?

Children aren't the property of parents, that's where that thinking comes in.

 

[IzzyPop]

That's like saying, if my sister wants to murder my mother, then I'll leave them the ability to make their own choices. This thinking does not take into an account the victum's choices or right to live.

You are placing the fetus in the same category as a living, breathing human. In fact, you are placing potential human over the actual human.

We do not have a "choice" to do everything we want if you think about it.

No. We do have a choice. The consequences of said choice may be severe enough to make the choices seem limited, but the choice still remains.

I do not base my argument on religious beliefs. The government's job is to protect it's citizens and those that can not protect themselves (sometimes, even from their own parents/mother). We then have to define if that baby in the womb is in fact a living being/baby or not and if they have basic human rights.

I highlighted the important part. First you must establish that. Then we can move on to the other issues. Lets say that a woman gets pregnant. You are saying that the baby could be so important that the rights of that baby are more important than the rights of the mother. You are condemning the mother to nine months of forced pregnancy.

It used to be the parents right to beat their children or kill them after they were born as well, but now we're not so arcaic, or are we?

Women used to be the chattel of their father or husband. We have moved beyond that and a woman having complete control over her reproductive rights is part of that.

 

[LJSGM]

I don't think anyone has a right to use someone else's body as a life support system.

She should have thought of that before she had sex.
Very poor argument.

As long as a foetus is not viable (i.e. as long as it could not survive outside the womb), it is a woman's choice to decide what happens to her body and how it is used.

Ok, so no abortions after, say, 20 weeks conception? There is a slight chance of them living without a hospital's help and a whole lot of chance with hospital's help. Poor argument.

Besides, personally I'd rather have been aborted if the other option were to be brought up in care or by a family that didn't want or couldn't afford to keep me. There are worse things than non-existence.

Most people do not feel that way forfunately. They are greatful for the life they have been given.

 

[LJSGM]

1) The human fetus is living, but it is not an individual in its own right.

Says who? Because you can't see it, touch it, or feel it?

If they could, no one would be doing this to a dog or other animal, let alone a baby.

2) Even if it were determined that a human fetus had rights, those rights do not include the right to incubate itself inside another person against their will.

how far are you going to go to stretch for your argument? Why do I even bother?

Children aren't the property of parents, that's where that thinking comes in.

But they are when they're in their mother's womb they are their "property"? Where do we draw the line? A little baby can't live on it's own, does that mean the mother has the right to neglect it and let it die? There have been many mothers that have been put in jail right now for doing that very thing.

 

[LJSGM]

You are placing the fetus in the same category as a living, breathing human. In fact, you are placing potential human over the actual human.

What is a baby that has just been born? Human potential? Where do we draw the line?

No. We do have a choice. The consequences of said choice may be severe enough to make the choices seem limited, but the choice still remains.

That choice was to have sex or not, they knew the possible consequences, and even if they didn't, that still doesn't mean they don't have to live with their consequences. Abortion is getting rid of the consequences at someone's exspense.

I highlighted the important part. First you must establish that. Then we can move on to the other issues. Lets say that a woman gets pregnant. You are saying that the baby could be so important that the rights of that baby are more important than the rights of the mother. You are condemning the mother to nine months of forced pregnancy.

OH boooo hooooo nine months of pregnancy How inhumane. Lets kill all the babies instead!

Women used to be the chattel of their father or husband. We have moved beyond that and a woman having complete control over her reproductive rights is part of that.

This has nothing to do with how women were treated. This have everything to do with the baby's rights. Why do people try to bring feminism into this. It still makes it a poor argument.

 

[cantata]

I don't think anyone has a right to use someone else's body as a life support system.

She should have thought of that before she had sex.
Very poor argument.

It's not poor at all. Firstly, why should only women have to worry about the consequences before they have sex? Secondly, this is about the fact that the foetus does not have the right to use someone else's body. It doesn't matter how it got there.

And thirdly, there are all sorts of mitigating circumstances: contraception could have failed; she may have been raped; she may have been misinformed or not informed at all by a useless abstinence-only sex education program; her parents or guardians may have shirked on giving her proper sex education.

 

[IzzyPop]

What is a baby that has just been born? Human potential? Where do we draw the line?

I don't know. I draw it where the fetus is viable.

That choice was to have sex or not, they knew the possible consequences, and even if they didn't, that still doesn't mean they don't have to live with their consequences.

Tell that to a rape victim. Tell that to a girl who has been impregnated by her father.

Abortion is getting rid of the consequences at someone's exspense.

That would be 'something', just because they have human DNA, does not make a fetus a person.

OH boooo hooooo nine months of pregnancy How inhumane. Lets kill all the babies instead!

Two points. Firstly, the operative word is forced. As in not by choice. That thing you would like to take away from people.

Secondly, I never said, nor intimated, that all babies should be killed. That was pretty disingenuous of you. I am attempting to have rational conversation about this. So please leave the appeals to emotion at the door.

This has nothing to do with how women were treated. This have everything to do with the baby's rights. Why do people try to bring feminism into this. It still makes it a poor argument.

It does have everything to do with how women are treated. Abortion is one of the side effects of equality. Men have nothing to do with pregnancy after the initial step. Now women can have the same. To take that from women is to make them less than men.

 

[LJSGM]

It's not poor at all. Firstly, why should only women have to worry about the consequences before they have sex?

This is like asking, why do women have to worry about STD's before they have sex... I don't know, because the consequences exist.

Secondly, this is about the fact that the foetus does not have the right to use someone else's body. It doesn't matter how it got there.

Says who?

And thirdly, there are all sorts of mitigating circumstances: contraception could have failed;

That's the risk she's taking.

she may have been raped;

99.9% of the time, this is not the case. Even so, these are the consequences of another person's actions on her. It's unfortunate, but true. If a man beats a woman, she gets bodily harm, if he rapes her, she might get pregnant, this does not negate the fact that the baby inside her is still a baby. This is why there are laws against rape and violence, to prevent these things from happening.

she may have been misinformed or not informed at all by a useless abstinence-only sex education program; her parents or guardians may have shirked on giving her proper sex education.

If she's not old enough to deal with the conseqences of her actions, or make these decisions, then she shouldn't be allowed to have sex. Sex, for underaged person's should be illegel. An under aged person can't even sign a piece of paper, why should they be able to make such an important decision for their lives at that age. They are taken advantage of all the time sexually.

 

[LJSGM]

I don't know. I draw it where the fetus is viable.

Why?

That would be 'something', just because they have human DNA, does not make a fetus a person.

What WOULD make them a person then? If they had feelings, emotions? What?

Two points. Firstly, the operative word is forced. As in not by choice. That thing you would like to take away from people.

rubbish. It's not like some alien group of people kidnapped her in the night and inpregnated her with some special device, then held her captive until they could steal her baby.

Secondly, I never said, nor intimated, that all babies should be killed.

If it's an slight inconvience to the mother, then they should be, right?

It does have everything to do with how women are treated. Abortion is one of the side effects of equality. Men have nothing to do with pregnancy after the initial step. Now women can have the same. To take that from women is to make them less than men.

Yeah, and if the woman decides to have the baby, the man is FORCED to pay the consequences and pay child support.

 

[cantata]

This is like asking, why do women have to worry about STD's before they have sex... I don't know, because the consequences exist.

As IzzyPop says, part of giving women equality is giving them control over their reproductive systems.

Secondly, this is about the fact that the foetus does not have the right to use someone else's body. It doesn't matter how it got there.

Says who?

Well, I know of no law in any country which says that under any other circumstances, someone has the right to use someone else's body as a life support system, and I don't see why foetuses should be treated any differently.

If a man beats a woman, she gets bodily harm, if he rapes her, she might get pregnant, this does not negate the fact that the baby inside her is still a baby. This is why there are laws against rape and violence, to prevent these things from happening.

Gosh, and here was me thinking that we have laws against rape to protect women from a horrific and degrading experience! How wrong I was.

Why should a woman have to suffer for someone else's actions? Living, breathing woman with feelings vs. ball of cells. The woman wins every time, in my opinion.

If she's not old enough to deal with the conseqences of her actions, or make these decisions, then she shouldn't be allowed to have sex. Sex, for underaged person's should be illegel. An under aged person can't even sign a piece of paper, why should they be able to make such an important decision for their lives at that age. They are taken advantage of all the time sexually.

This is off-topic; I'm not talking about underaged persons. I'm talking about legally of-age people who have incorrect, incomplete or no information about the sexual functioning of their bodies. I quite agree with you that sex with minors should be illegal. (In fact, it is illegal!) But adults can be misinformed as well as young people.

Besides, even though it's illegal to have sex with minors (and under various circumstances for them to have sex with one another), that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Suppose a twelve-year-old girl gets pregnant through consensual sex with another minor. Should she be made to carry the foetus to term and give birth?

 

[LJSGM]

As IzzyPop says, part of giving women equality is giving them control over their reproductive systems.



Well, I know of no law in any country which says that under any other circumstances, someone has the right to use someone else's body as a life support system, and I don't see why foetuses should be treated any differently.



Gosh, and here was me thinking that we have laws against rape to protect women from a horrific and degrading experience! How wrong I was.

Why should a woman have to suffer for someone else's actions? Living, breathing woman with feelings vs. ball of cells. The woman wins every time, in my opinion.



This is off-topic; I'm not talking about underaged persons. I'm talking about legally of-age people who have incorrect, incomplete or no information about the sexual functioning of their bodies. I quite agree with you that sex with minors should be illegal. (In fact, it is illegal!) But adults can be misinformed as well as young people.

Besides, even though it's illegal to have sex with minors (and under various circumstances for them to have sex with one another), that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Suppose a twelve-year-old girl gets pregnant through consensual sex with another minor. Should she be made to carry the foetus to term and give birth?

Again, consequences of bad behavior on someone's part does not negate the fact that the baby is still a baby.

 

[IzzyPop]

Why?

Because that is what I feel. Just like you feel that is begins at conception. We have no way of knowing when a human potential becomes human. But why should either or our opinions affect someone else's rights?

What WOULD make them a person then? If they had feelings, emotions? What?

Sentience would be a pretty good starting point for personhood. Just as viability is a good point to be 'human'.

rubbish. It's not like some alien group of people kidnapped her in the night and inpregnated her with some special device, then held her captive until they could steal her baby.

Nope. It's worse. It's her own people deciding she is no better than an incubator for the more important entity she is carrying inside of her. See, her rights mean nothing compared to the rights of unborn. The woman is less valuable than the fetus.

If it's an slight inconvience to the mother, then they should be, right?

If the mother feels that is her best option, then yes. Most women do not abort due to a slight inconvenience. It is a hard thought choice that is full of emotional pain. You calmly dismissing that as a 'slight inconvenience' shows a lack of compassion and caring for your fellow humans. Nice.

Yeah, and if the woman decides to have the baby, the man is FORCED to pay the consequences and pay child support.

Not really. I can run if I want to. I can refuse to pay. A woman cannot just refuse to have the child without an abortion.

 

[chaz345]

It's not poor at all. Firstly, why should only women have to worry about the consequences before they have sex?

The woman is not the only one that will have consequenses. The man is financially liable. Further, the choice is entirely hers. She's the one with all of the power once an unintended pregnancy occurs.

As for the fetus not having a right to use the woman's body, that would hold a lot more water if women could just randomly become pregnant with no intentional choice on their part. Let's leave rape out of this for now since the number of abortions due to rape is pretty darn small.

It's simple, you have sex you know that even with contraception there is some chance that you'll become pregnant. Period. That knowledge alone negates the "fetus has no right to use the woman's body" argument. She exercised a choice where she knew that that was a possibility, she shouldn't have the right to undo the results of that choice.

For perspective clarity it should probably be pointed out that I have a 14 month old daughter that is the result of a failed tube tying so I'm not entirely ignorant as to the realities of an unexpected and/or unaffordable child.

 

[LJSGM]

Because that is what I feel. Just like you feel that is begins at conception. We have no way of knowing when a human potential becomes human. But why should either or our opinions affect someone else's rights?



Sentience would be a pretty good starting point for personhood. Just as viability is a good point to be 'human'.

Nope. It's worse. It's her own people deciding she is no better than an incubator for the more important entity she is carrying inside of her. See, her rights mean nothing compared to the rights of unborn. The woman is less valuable than the fetus.

If the mother feels that is her best option, then yes. Most women do not abort due to a slight inconvenience. It is a hard thought choice that is full of emotional pain. You calmly dismissing that as a 'slight inconvenience' shows a lack of compassion and caring for your fellow humans. Nice.



Not really. I can run if I want to. I can refuse to pay. A woman cannot just refuse to have the child without an abortion.

what LEGITIMATE reasons should we allow for a woman to kill her baby? Outside the womb?

 

[IzzyPop]

what LEGITIMATE reasons should we allow for a woman to kill her baby? Outside the womb?

Where did that come from? We are not talking about outside the womb. Outside the womb is an entirely different matter.

 

[flicka]

Again, consequences of bad behavior on someone's part does not negate the fact that the baby is still a baby.

Oh, so your one of those who think sex is bad and babies are punishment. It all makes sense now. Or are you speaking of a rapist? I really can't follow this.

 

[LJSGM]

Where did that come from? We are not talking about outside the womb. Outside the womb is an entirely different matter.

It's not an entirely different matter, if the baby is still a baby inside the womb five minutes before it's outside the womb. Where's the line?

 

[LJSGM]

Oh, so your one of those who think sex is bad and babies are punishment. It all makes sense now. Or are you speaking of a rapist? I really can't follow this.

sex has consequences, whether good or bad is based on the relative view of the person and does not negate the fact that the baby is still a baby. If a person views it as a negative consequence, that does not automatically mean that it's no longer a baby.