Total Posts:135|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Only one argument for abortion rights

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 10:19:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
People who support abortion rights have only one valid argument: fetuses don't have rights because they have not been born yet.

There are no other arguments. It's not a women's right to 'choose' to murder someone, so abortion can only be considered moral if the fetus is shown to not be a person yet, rendering murder out of the question. I'm so tired of hearing 'It's a women's right to choose,' because it's completely ineffective against people who consider a fetus to have rights. The only way we're going to progress with abortion rights is if the supporters argue rationally, and put forth arguments that aren't seen as murder justified with convenience by the opposition.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 10:49:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 10:19:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
People who support abortion rights have only one valid argument: fetuses don't have rights because they have not been born yet.

There are no other arguments. It's not a women's right to 'choose' to murder someone, so abortion can only be considered moral if the fetus is shown to not be a person yet, rendering murder out of the question. I'm so tired of hearing 'It's a women's right to choose,' because it's completely ineffective against people who consider a fetus to have rights. The only way we're going to progress with abortion rights is if the supporters argue rationally, and put forth arguments that aren't seen as murder justified with convenience by the opposition.

By definition a fetus is a parasite. And parasites are killed all the time.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 10:53:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 10:49:53 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/28/2013 10:19:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
People who support abortion rights have only one valid argument: fetuses don't have rights because they have not been born yet.

There are no other arguments. It's not a women's right to 'choose' to murder someone, so abortion can only be considered moral if the fetus is shown to not be a person yet, rendering murder out of the question. I'm so tired of hearing 'It's a women's right to choose,' because it's completely ineffective against people who consider a fetus to have rights. The only way we're going to progress with abortion rights is if the supporters argue rationally, and put forth arguments that aren't seen as murder justified with convenience by the opposition.

By definition a fetus is a parasite. And parasites are killed all the time.

That's not a good argument. Humans are animals, animals are killed all the time, is murder okay?
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 10:55:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 10:53:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/28/2013 10:49:53 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/28/2013 10:19:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
People who support abortion rights have only one valid argument: fetuses don't have rights because they have not been born yet.

There are no other arguments. It's not a women's right to 'choose' to murder someone, so abortion can only be considered moral if the fetus is shown to not be a person yet, rendering murder out of the question. I'm so tired of hearing 'It's a women's right to choose,' because it's completely ineffective against people who consider a fetus to have rights. The only way we're going to progress with abortion rights is if the supporters argue rationally, and put forth arguments that aren't seen as murder justified with convenience by the opposition.

By definition a fetus is a parasite. And parasites are killed all the time.

That's not a good argument. Humans are animals, animals are killed all the time, is murder okay?
Murder is banned by social contract. Animals do not abide by that concept. My argument stands.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 10:58:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 10:55:18 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/28/2013 10:53:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/28/2013 10:49:53 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/28/2013 10:19:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
People who support abortion rights have only one valid argument: fetuses don't have rights because they have not been born yet.

There are no other arguments. It's not a women's right to 'choose' to murder someone, so abortion can only be considered moral if the fetus is shown to not be a person yet, rendering murder out of the question. I'm so tired of hearing 'It's a women's right to choose,' because it's completely ineffective against people who consider a fetus to have rights. The only way we're going to progress with abortion rights is if the supporters argue rationally, and put forth arguments that aren't seen as murder justified with convenience by the opposition.

By definition a fetus is a parasite. And parasites are killed all the time.

That's not a good argument. Humans are animals, animals are killed all the time, is murder okay?
Murder is banned by social contract. Animals do not abide by that concept. My argument stands.

I don't understand how your analogy proves anything, that's my point. It's premises are true, but it's not sound.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 10:59:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 10:49:53 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/28/2013 10:19:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
People who support abortion rights have only one valid argument: fetuses don't have rights because they have not been born yet.

There are no other arguments. It's not a women's right to 'choose' to murder someone, so abortion can only be considered moral if the fetus is shown to not be a person yet, rendering murder out of the question. I'm so tired of hearing 'It's a women's right to choose,' because it's completely ineffective against people who consider a fetus to have rights. The only way we're going to progress with abortion rights is if the supporters argue rationally, and put forth arguments that aren't seen as murder justified with convenience by the opposition.

By definition a fetus is a parasite. And parasites are killed all the time.

You are defining a fetus as fitting into the category of parasite, and claiming things called 'parasites' are killed all the time. I'm pointing out that humans fall into the category of 'animal,' and animals are killed all the time. Fetuses are not JUST parasites, and humans are not JUST animals.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 11:10:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 10:49:53 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 3/28/2013 10:19:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
People who support abortion rights have only one valid argument: fetuses don't have rights because they have not been born yet.

There are no other arguments. It's not a women's right to 'choose' to murder someone, so abortion can only be considered moral if the fetus is shown to not be a person yet, rendering murder out of the question. I'm so tired of hearing 'It's a women's right to choose,' because it's completely ineffective against people who consider a fetus to have rights. The only way we're going to progress with abortion rights is if the supporters argue rationally, and put forth arguments that aren't seen as murder justified with convenience by the opposition.

By definition a fetus is a parasite.
"But science paints a vastly different picture about the actual relationship between a baby in utero and his or her mother, showing that, far from being a parasite, the unborn child can help heal his mother for the rest of her life, as beneficial cells from the child pass into the mother"s body during pregnancy...
Both Johnson and Artlett defend the hypothesis that the baby"s fetal cells have a beneficent purpose, not to hurt the mother, but to protect, defend, and repair her for the rest of her life, especially when she becomes seriously ill."
http://www.lifesitenews.com...

And parasites are killed all the time.

They are not human though. Also, the parasites are usually killed for health reasons.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 11:42:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Plus the fact that I doubt you could find a parasite that just leaves, after around nine months or so.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 12:45:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 11:42:25 AM, OberHerr wrote:
Plus the fact that I doubt you could find a parasite that just leaves, after around nine months or so.

This... If parasites were expelled after 9 months, than there would be no reason to evict them, unless they posed an immediate risk to their host.

Furthermore, doctors have been using parasites for millions of years to fight illnesses; one example is leaching. Parasitic Worms are also used to fight bowl disease. Maggots are sometimes used to speed up the healing process of open wounds; it's called "Maggot Debridement Therapy".
http://microbemagic.ucc.ie...
http://fohn.net...
Some blood sucking insects are also used in diagnosis, by allowing them to suck the patient's blood, and than examining the feces.
The fetus provides many health benefits to the mother.
58% of women who suffer from bulimia may see a whole or partial remission when they become pregnant. Pregnancy can also improve autoimmune diseases.
http://www.americanpregnancy.org...
Pregnancy can improve psoriasis, Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis. Pregnancy can also improve asthma and multiple sclerosis.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

If the fetus was a parasite, it would be the most useful parasite in existence.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 12:49:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You've obviously never heard my argument for abortion.

Yes, the fetus is essentially the equivalent of a human life. Denying it would be imposing artificially arbitrary lines on something that is biologically axiomatic. However, most people (for some odd reason), operate under the unconditional axiom that the taking of a human life is inherently and objectively bad. I fundamentally disagree with this notion, and thus abortion is allowed.

Furthermore, since morality is dictated by culture, and our culture essentially permits the taking of the life of the fetus, killing- in this scenario- is perfectly moral.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 12:58:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 12:49:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
You've obviously never heard my argument for abortion.

Yes, the fetus is essentially the equivalent of a human life. Denying it would be imposing artificially arbitrary lines on something that is biologically axiomatic. However, most people (for some odd reason), operate under the unconditional axiom that the taking of a human life is inherently and objectively bad. I fundamentally disagree with this notion, and thus abortion is allowed.

The Laws of Human Nature dictate that man has an inalienable right to life. Unless the fetus poses and equivalent threat to rights of the mother, it would violate the rights of the fetus. Furthermore, we have a constitutional right to life, liberty, and property.
Furthermore, since morality is dictated by culture, and our culture essentially permits the taking of the life of the fetus, killing- in this scenario- is perfectly moral.

I hear this argument so much, but according to polls society is becoming increasingly pro-life, and the vast majority of the community believe abortion should only be permissible under certain circumstances (such as a threat to the mother's life).
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:02:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Women own their bodies (well partially - society has a strong claim). They can destroy any part of their body they choose. Until it is outside of the woman and can survive without her, it essentially is part of the woman.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:06:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's also the idea that given the conflict of rights (this position therefore granting rights to both parties), the mother's right to her body hold precedence.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:09:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 12:49:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Furthermore, since morality is dictated by culture, and our culture essentially permits the taking of the life of the fetus, killing- in this scenario- is perfectly moral.

I still don't understand why ye relativists insist on ascribing normative validity to the aggregate of subjective value claims made by members of society. Just admit yer a nihilist and move on.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:10:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 12:58:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/28/2013 12:49:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
You've obviously never heard my argument for abortion.

Yes, the fetus is essentially the equivalent of a human life. Denying it would be imposing artificially arbitrary lines on something that is biologically axiomatic. However, most people (for some odd reason), operate under the unconditional axiom that the taking of a human life is inherently and objectively bad. I fundamentally disagree with this notion, and thus abortion is allowed.

The Laws of Human Nature dictate that man has an inalienable right to life. Unless the fetus poses and equivalent threat to rights of the mother, it would violate the rights of the fetus.

"The Laws of Human Nature" are bullsh!t. They have grounding in absolutely nothing.

Furthermore, we have a constitutional right to life, liberty, and property.

Who says that I accept the Constitution?

Furthermore, since morality is dictated by culture, and our culture essentially permits the taking of the life of the fetus, killing- in this scenario- is perfectly moral.

I hear this argument so much, but according to polls society is becoming increasingly pro-life, and the vast majority of the community believe abortion should only be permissible under certain circumstances (such as a threat to the mother's life).

Most individuals are still pro-choice.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:19:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 10:19:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
People who support abortion rights have only one valid argument: fetuses don't have rights because they have not been born yet.

There are no other arguments. It's not a women's right to 'choose' to murder someone, so abortion can only be considered moral if the fetus is shown to not be a person yet, rendering murder out of the question. I'm so tired of hearing 'It's a women's right to choose,' because it's completely ineffective against people who consider a fetus to have rights. The only way we're going to progress with abortion rights is if the supporters argue rationally, and put forth arguments that aren't seen as murder justified with convenience by the opposition.

Pro-choice advocates need to not shy away from calling it murder, IMO. Fine, it is murdering the fetus. So, what? The government allows murder in certain circumstances, namely war and self-defense. The issue is of a legal consequence, not a moral one. Why do people have to assume that if you support/oppose something legally, you personally desire/refuse it?

So, to argue with the fetus' rights, we need to say, what about the mother's rights. Not privacy issues, as I don't understand that argument, and I think it is stupid. But human rights. The child cannot survive on its own, it literally saps the strength and nutrients from the mother (like a parasite). So, is the mother to be a slave to this parasite, who literally lives for the sake of the fetus? Of course, this argument is moot after the age of viability (the time where the child can realistically survive outside the womb, at around six months), as the mother has chosen to bear the child to term, and to kill it now would be murder, as the child could be removed and still survive.

Then, you argue legal ramifications, like smoking, drinking, and stress is all child abuse. Is a miscarriage negligent homocide, if it was due to malnutrition or stress? And, of course, if it is to be murder, the circumstance of pregnency is irrelevant, so rape and incest is still murder.
My work here is, finally, done.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:31:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 1:02:47 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Women own their bodies (well partially - society has a strong claim). They can destroy any part of their body they choose. Until it is outside of the woman and can survive without her, it essentially is part of the woman.
The opposition would agrue that the baby is not part of her body, merely inside of her.
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:51:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 1:31:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/28/2013 1:02:47 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Women own their bodies (well partially - society has a strong claim). They can destroy any part of their body they choose. Until it is outside of the woman and can survive without her, it essentially is part of the woman.
The opposition would agrue that the baby is not part of her body, merely inside of her.

And the woman's kidney is also not a part of her body: It's just inside of her.

How are we to decide what is a part of a woman's body and what is just inside of her?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:54:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 12:49:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
You've obviously never heard my argument for abortion.

Yes, the fetus is essentially the equivalent of a human life. Denying it would be imposing artificially arbitrary lines on something that is biologically axiomatic. However, most people (for some odd reason), operate under the unconditional axiom that the taking of a human life is inherently and objectively bad. I fundamentally disagree with this notion, and thus abortion is allowed.

Furthermore, since morality is dictated by culture, and our culture essentially permits the taking of the life of the fetus, killing- in this scenario- is perfectly moral.

tl;dr: You can't prove that murder is bad, so let's go do it! Also, I'm really confused about what objective and subjective morality means!
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:59:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 10:19:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
People who support abortion rights have only one valid argument: fetuses don't have rights because they have not been born yet.

There are no other arguments. It's not a women's right to 'choose' to murder someone, so abortion can only be considered moral if the fetus is shown to not be a person yet, rendering murder out of the question. I'm so tired of hearing 'It's a women's right to choose,' because it's completely ineffective against people who consider a fetus to have rights. The only way we're going to progress with abortion rights is if the supporters argue rationally, and put forth arguments that aren't seen as murder justified with convenience by the opposition.

Before you can make this claim, you must ask yourself: Is the fetus alive to any meaningful level?

There are many living things, from bacteria to whales. We have no problem killing bacteria. So, what sets us apart as humans that makes our form of life special? We possess the capacity for self-awareness. Self-awareness, by itself, is a very hard concept to describe. It is your ability to see out of your own eyes. It is your ability to act of your own volition, not as a creature, but as yourself. It is, as simply as such a concept can be described, your identity, your thoughts, your consciousness, and yourself.

Now, look back into your memories. If you look far enough, you'll find a moment where you really don't remember anything before. You were probably about 2 or 3 then. Your first memories were not of you being born, or of you being in the womb. These events may be imprinted on your brain, but you never perceived them in a self-aware fashion.

This brings me to my argument. Imagine if you never were able to gain self awareness, that your memories never started recording. What would you perceive? Do you remember perceiving anything before those memories began? Would you have been able to have perceived any of this while you were still a zygote? What pain would you experience, had you suffered a fatal accident beforehand?

Nothing. You would feel nothing, and you would not care, mainly since you lack the ability. Your consciousness would never have been fully developed enough to be created. I would say it would be similar to death, but I would be wrong: death requires that there was originally, in its place, life. Many people opposed to abortion for religious reasons are this way because they believe the soul enters the body at conception. They are wrong. Your 'soul' is your self-awareness. How can that be taken which has never been bestowed? How can meaningful life cease, when it has never started?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 2:12:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 1:59:29 PM, drhead wrote:
At 3/28/2013 10:19:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
People who support abortion rights have only one valid argument: fetuses don't have rights because they have not been born yet.

There are no other arguments. It's not a women's right to 'choose' to murder someone, so abortion can only be considered moral if the fetus is shown to not be a person yet, rendering murder out of the question. I'm so tired of hearing 'It's a women's right to choose,' because it's completely ineffective against people who consider a fetus to have rights. The only way we're going to progress with abortion rights is if the supporters argue rationally, and put forth arguments that aren't seen as murder justified with convenience by the opposition.

Before you can make this claim, you must ask yourself: Is the fetus alive to any meaningful level?

There are many living things, from bacteria to whales. We have no problem killing bacteria. So, what sets us apart as humans that makes our form of life special? We possess the capacity for self-awareness. Self-awareness, by itself, is a very hard concept to describe. It is your ability to see out of your own eyes. It is your ability to act of your own volition, not as a creature, but as yourself. It is, as simply as such a concept can be described, your identity, your thoughts, your consciousness, and yourself.

Now, look back into your memories. If you look far enough, you'll find a moment where you really don't remember anything before. You were probably about 2 or 3 then. Your first memories were not of you being born, or of you being in the womb. These events may be imprinted on your brain, but you never perceived them in a self-aware fashion.

This brings me to my argument. Imagine if you never were able to gain self awareness, that your memories never started recording. What would you perceive? Do you remember perceiving anything before those memories began? Would you have been able to have perceived any of this while you were still a zygote? What pain would you experience, had you suffered a fatal accident beforehand?

Nothing. You would feel nothing, and you would not care, mainly since you lack the ability. Your consciousness would never have been fully developed enough to be created. I would say it would be similar to death, but I would be wrong: death requires that there was originally, in its place, life. Many people opposed to abortion for religious reasons are this way because they believe the soul enters the body at conception. They are wrong. Your 'soul' is your self-awareness. How can that be taken which has never been bestowed? How can meaningful life cease, when it has never started?

I would agree with this.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 2:20:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 1:31:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/28/2013 1:02:47 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Women own their bodies (well partially - society has a strong claim). They can destroy any part of their body they choose. Until it is outside of the woman and can survive without her, it essentially is part of the woman.

The opposition would agrue that the baby is not part of her body, merely inside of her.

Then why shouldn't she be able to eject it at her leisure? I like to draw this parallel when talking about abortion.

Picture two cars driving along the road you are in one, and the other has two people, one driver and one passenger. There is an accident involving both cars, but was neither driver's fault and both drivers are uninjured. However the passenger of the other car was severely injured and for one reason or another needs an emergency kidney transplant. Doctors have ascertained that your kidney is the only one compatible and close enough to save the man in time. Should you be legally obligated to donate your kidney to the injured passenger?

Most people would say no. Kidney transplants are dangerous, and even though a person can survive perfectly fine with only one kidney it is considered unreasonable to force a person to donate organs. The same basic scenario applies to the female/fetus situation. There was an accident involving two parties that affect a third and one of the parties faces the choice of helping or neglecting the third party to their detriment (as even with any potential benefits to the mother because of pregnancy, there are also undeniable drawbacks in terms of health).

We wouldn't force the person to help in the first situation, so why should we in the second?
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 2:22:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 2:20:02 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 3/28/2013 1:31:52 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/28/2013 1:02:47 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Women own their bodies (well partially - society has a strong claim). They can destroy any part of their body they choose. Until it is outside of the woman and can survive without her, it essentially is part of the woman.

The opposition would agrue that the baby is not part of her body, merely inside of her.

Then why shouldn't she be able to eject it at her leisure? I like to draw this parallel when talking about abortion.

Picture two cars driving along the road you are in one, and the other has two people, one driver and one passenger. There is an accident involving both cars, but was neither driver's fault and both drivers are uninjured. However the passenger of the other car was severely injured and for one reason or another needs an emergency kidney transplant. Doctors have ascertained that your kidney is the only one compatible and close enough to save the man in time. Should you be legally obligated to donate your kidney to the injured passenger?

Most people would say no. Kidney transplants are dangerous, and even though a person can survive perfectly fine with only one kidney it is considered unreasonable to force a person to donate organs. The same basic scenario applies to the female/fetus situation. There was an accident involving two parties that affect a third and one of the parties faces the choice of helping or neglecting the third party to their detriment (as even with any potential benefits to the mother because of pregnancy, there are also undeniable drawbacks in terms of health).

We wouldn't force the person to help in the first situation, so why should we in the second?

I don't know why. I support abortion lol.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 1:00:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I could never get an abortion, no matter what I'd been through or would have to go through. That's my own child I'm killing. It would be blatant treachery. I can't think of a good reason why anybody would do that.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 1:05:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 1:00:39 AM, APB wrote:
I could never get an abortion, no matter what I'd been through or would have to go through. That's my own child I'm killing. It would be blatant treachery. I can't think of a good reason why anybody would do that.

What if your own life was threatened because of it, e.g. an ectopic pregnancy?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 1:13:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've always considered it the "lesser of two evils" option. Forget the morality, and consider the situation pragmatically.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 1:18:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Persons don't exist inside other persons. Up until the point when the doctor yanks the baby out the mother's groin, there is no "baby." Everything inside the mother's body is part of the mother and therefore her property to do as she wishes. When the baby pops out and starts crying, it becomes a person of its own with its own rights and protections.

I don't buy into the concept that an actual person can live inside another person and would support the mother's right to having an abortion right until the second before the baby is born. The official time at which the baby starts breathing air is when he becomes a real person and killing him would be immoral.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 1:24:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 1:10:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/28/2013 12:58:01 PM, DanT wrote:
At 3/28/2013 12:49:08 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
You've obviously never heard my argument for abortion.

Yes, the fetus is essentially the equivalent of a human life. Denying it would be imposing artificially arbitrary lines on something that is biologically axiomatic. However, most people (for some odd reason), operate under the unconditional axiom that the taking of a human life is inherently and objectively bad. I fundamentally disagree with this notion, and thus abortion is allowed.

The Laws of Human Nature dictate that man has an inalienable right to life. Unless the fetus poses and equivalent threat to rights of the mother, it would violate the rights of the fetus.

"The Laws of Human Nature" are bullsh!t. They have grounding in absolutely nothing.

They are grounded in human nature; hence the name.
Furthermore, we have a constitutional right to life, liberty, and property.

Who says that I accept the Constitution?

Doesn't matter if you accept it, it's the law.

Furthermore, since morality is dictated by culture, and our culture essentially permits the taking of the life of the fetus, killing- in this scenario- is perfectly moral.

I hear this argument so much, but according to polls society is becoming increasingly pro-life, and the vast majority of the community believe abortion should only be permissible under certain circumstances (such as a threat to the mother's life).

Most individuals are still pro-choice.

Actually according to Gallup polls most are pro life, buts its neck and neck.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 1:30:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/29/2013 1:18:38 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
Persons don't exist inside other persons. Up until the point when the doctor yanks the baby out the mother's groin, there is no "baby." Everything inside the mother's body is part of the mother and therefore her property to do as she wishes. When the baby pops out and starts crying, it becomes a person of its own with its own rights and protections.

Since when does location dictate who is and is not a person?
I don't buy into the concept that an actual person can live inside another person and would support the mother's right to having an abortion right until the second before the baby is born.
That's pretty sick. Even hard-core pro-deathers arn't that extreme.

The official time at which the baby starts breathing air is when he becomes a real person and killing him would be immoral.

If someone's lungs stop working do they stop being human? Just want to know where you draw the line.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Misterscruffles
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2013 2:17:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 10:19:47 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
People who support abortion rights have only one valid argument: fetuses don't have rights because they have not been born yet.

There are no other arguments. It's not a women's right to 'choose' to murder someone, so abortion can only be considered moral if the fetus is shown to not be a person yet, rendering murder out of the question. I'm so tired of hearing 'It's a women's right to choose,' because it's completely ineffective against people who consider a fetus to have rights. The only way we're going to progress with abortion rights is if the supporters argue rationally, and put forth arguments that aren't seen as murder justified with convenience by the opposition.

I only need to read the first two sentences to see it is useless to debate this topic with you, as you are not ready to even think about the idea that your opponent might have a valid point.
Niao! =^.^=